Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ETHIOPIA (ITALIAN WAR CRIMES)

Mr. Emus Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which Italian generals are to be tried as war criminals for atrocities committed under their orders in Abyssinia.

The Minister of State (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): I understand that three months ago a representative of the Ethiopian Government saw the Secretary-General of the United Nations War Crimes Commission and that he was given the appropriate forms for submitting evidence. So far, I understand, no cases have yet been submitted either to the War Crimes Commission or to anyone else.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the Moscow declaration of 6th November, 1943, stated that persons accused of war crimes would be tried on the spot where the alleged crimes had been committed; and will he say whether this does not apply to Africa as well as to Europe?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That is rather a different question, and one of which I should require notice. I have given the hon. Gentleman the information I have in reply to the Question he put down.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is in the public interest that these people should be brought to trial at the earliest possible moment and immediate steps taken to that effect?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I do not want now to debate the point put by my hon. and learned Friend. I understand that there is some doubt whether the United Nations War Crimes Commission would feel that they had jurisdiction over acts committed before 1939.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (U.N.R.R.A. SUPPLIES)

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is satisfied that the distribution of food in Italy by U.N.R.R.A, reaches the distressed people for whom it is intended; and if he can assure the House that no substantial part of our food consignments to U.N.R.R.A. is dealt with on the black market.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The U.N.R.R.A. mission in Italy controls the scales of its food rations which are issued to the Italian people, and regularly reviews the returns of its ration issues and its warehouse stocks. I am satisfied that, by these means, it ensures that U.N.R.R.A. supplies reach the people for whom they are intended, and that in Italy virtually no U.N.R.R.A. food reaches the black market.

Sir P. Hannon: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any recent reports from Italy independently of the Italian Government, and is he aware that the distribution of food subscribed by the charities of this country and the United States is in danger of becoming a real scandal in international affairs?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I cannot accept that for a moment. Of course I receive reports from Italy, and of course the U.N.R.R.A. Mission are constantly supervising this work. They are satisfied that there is some petty pilfering, but we had large-scale pilfering on our railways during the war. They are satisfied that poor people sometimes sell the more expensive forms of food they receive from U.N.R.R.A. in order to buy themselves larger quantities of cheaper food. A little food from U.N.R.R.A. sources may reach the black market in that way, but the quantity is very small.

Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister aware that during my recent tour in Italy U.N.R.R.A. officials told me that something like 20 per cent. of our supplies


were reaching the black market still? Can nothing be done to prevent the British taxpayers being exploited by the racketeers in Italy?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps the hon. Member will let me know who were the officials who gave him the information, and I will then make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (EAST RIVER COLUMN)

Mr. James Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements are being made to aid and succour the 30,000 men and their families of the East River Column who helped our cause so valiantly during the war in the Pacific and who have now reached Hong Kong.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I understand that the strength of the East River Column was between five and six thousand armed men. Of these some 2,400 were embarked on 29th June for transport to North China in American ships. The remainder have now been disbanded. Only a few of them have so far reached Hong Kong. Payments have been made to members of the Column to cover the expenses they incurred in helping Allied nationals to escape from Hong Kong during its occupation by the Japanese. This is in accordance with our practice in Europe as well as in the Pacific, and for that reason I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that further help of this kind would be inappropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUB-CARPATHIAN RUTHENIA

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider the insertion of a clause in the Treaty of Peace for the protection of the Hungarian minority in sub-Carpathian Ruthenia.

Mr. Noel-Baker: None of the Peace Treaties will deal with sub-Carpathian Ruthenia. In any case, as I explained in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Flight-Lieutenant Haire) on 3rd July, the rights of minorities, here as elsewhere, will he governed by the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Professor Savory: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the male population was rounded up in the middle of the night and forced to sign a declaration that they wanted to be incorporated with the Soviet Union, and can nothing be done to prevent this abuse of power?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I have had no such information, but if the hon. Member will let me have it I will inquire into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND

Political Conditions

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the arrest of 3,000 more members of the party of Monsieur Mikolajczyk in the Poznan area; and if he will represent to the Polish Provisional Government that, in view of the forthcoming General Election, such arrests are inconsistent with the Yalta and Potsdam Agreements by which free and unfettered elections were guaranteed.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. The Polish Provisional Government have already been informed that His Majesty's Government could not consider the conditions laid down in the Crimea Declaration to have been fulfilled, if they had reason to believe that any of the existing political parties in Poland had been suppressed, that the normal activities of any party had been hampered, or that ally party had been treated unfairly by comparison with the others in respect of freedom of organisation or facilities for assembly and for the public expression of its policy and views.

Professor Savory: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that M. Mikolajczyk has stated that, since 1st June, 1,213 leaders of his party have bean arrested and 14 have been assassinated by unknown persons?

Mr. Warbey: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the British Ambassador has been instructed to inquire into allegations that some members of M. Mikolajczyk's party have associations with terrorist groups who are carrying or, armed warfare against the Polish State?

Mr. Noel-Baker: That point has been considered, but I have no reason to believe that there is any such connection between terrorist groups and the party referred to.

Financial Agreement (Suspension)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the ratification by His Majesty's Government of the recent Anglo-Polish financial agreement has been suspended.

Mr. Noel-Baker: As my hon. Friend is aware, when His Majesty's Government recognised the Polish Provisional Government, they did so on the strength of an undertaking by the Polish Provisional Government that free and unfettered elections would be held in Poland as soon as possible on the basis of universal suffrage and secret ballot, and that all democratic and anti-Nazi parties should have the right to put forward candidates. During the Potsdam Conference, President Bierut renewed this pledge, and assured my right hon. Friend that the elections would be held in the spring of 1946 and in accordance with the Polish Constitution of 1921.No electoral law has, however, yet been issued, and no date has yet been fixed for the elections. Before the Financial Agreement, signed on 24th June, is ratified, His Majesty's Government wish to be assured that the Polish Provisional Government will carry out their undertaking; and the Polish Government were so informed when the Agreement was made.

Mr. Warbey: Why was the agreement signed at all, if the Government had these political considerations in mind? Can my right hon. Friend also say whether it was a matter of mere coincidence that the American State Department on almost the same day suspended a loan to Poland—or is this another example of parallel diplomacy?

Mr. Noel-Baker: On the latter point, certainly there was in this case no coordination of action with the United States Government I am not quite sure that my hon. Friend is right about the action which he says the United States Government took. I am afraid I have forgotten his first point.

Mr. Warbey: I asked why the Government signed the agreement at all if they had those political considerations in mind.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We signed the agreement because we had reached with the Polish Provisional Government a settlement which we thought was generous, and we desired, by signing the agreement, to show our good will towards the Polish nation and our hope that the agreement would soon be ratified.

Mr. Pritt: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department considered the sober fact that there is £4 million in gold involved here which belongs to the Polish Government? Will he contrast this action with the conduct of the former Government, who handed over the Czechs' gold to Hitler because they said it technically belonged to him?

Major Guy Lloyd: What has the present Provisional Government done to earn that gold?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I hope and believe that in many ways the present Provisional Government are making progress towards the stabilisation of the country. Perhaps I may say, in reply to the hon. and learned Member, that I am not here to defend the régime of Colonel Beck.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Have His Majesty's Government any information that there are, operating in Poland now, terrorist gangs whose object is to overthrow the existing Government and State, if they can? Will he say what the Government are doing to——

Mr. Speaker: The question put to the Minister relates to a financial agreement and not to terrorist gangs.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to say that we are aware that there are terrorist bands in Poland and that we condemn in the strongest possible manner any private use of armed violence.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Royal Hospital School, Holbrook

Commander Pursey: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what conversion is being, or has been, effected in the Royal Hospital School, Holbrook, house "Byways"; the cost and reason for this conversion; who is to occupy the house; why a flat is being furnished at the expense of the orphanage, instead of by the


woman secretary who is designated for it; and what new consideration justifies these further conversions after the orphanage has been in commission without them for 13 years.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): Holbrook is seven miles from the nearest town and there is no place near the school at which relatives of boys can get accommodation and meals. This former official residence has therefore been adapted for the purpose at a cost of £90, and meals will be supplied at reasonable charges which are fixed by the school authorities. A very small part of the house has been converted for use of the headmaster's secretary, whose terms of appointment include free board and lodging and for whom no other suitable accommodation is available within the main school buildings.

Commander Pursey: Will the Financial Secretary give us the reason why this woman secretary, who is known as "Gestapo Bertha," is there, seeing that there was a naval writer as captain superintendent's secretary, who has had to be given other employment; and that this woman, with an additional assistant headmaster, was imported by the present headmaster? Will the Minister see that all these unnecessary employees are discharged?

Mr. Dugdale: That seems an entirely different question. Whether the pseudonym attached to the lady by my hon. and gallant Friend is justified, is another matter. I have no reason for supposing that there is any justification for it.

Liberty Boats

Mr. Mallalieu: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will now consider abolishing liberty boats from shore establishments in this country.

Mr. Dugdale: My right hon. Friend has this matter under consideration, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

Mr. Mallalieu: While giving a qualified thanks to the Minister for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that every facility should be given to ratings after working hours in this respect?

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: As, to my knowledge, the First Lord has had this question under consideration for some time, would the Minister tell us what tremendous decision is holding up this matter?

Mr. Dugdale: The Question was first put down a week ago. My right hon. Friend has only just returned from India, and the matter requires a little consideration.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Can the Minister assure us that the inspection of liberty men does not on this occasion extend to the examination of their clothing for Service marking, which can surely be done on a more appropriate occasion?

Mines, Bute Coast

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that hundreds of mines have been washed ashore at Scalpsie Bay on the coast of Bute; what is the reason for this; and are other shores on the Firth of Clyde likely to suffer in the same way.

Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir, but Naval mines are not involved. The mines being washed ashore, amongst other explosive matter, are Army mines. So far as is known, explosives are coming ashore from a sunken ship which is breaking up. Other shores on the Firth of Clyde are suffering in the same way. The Army authorities of Scottish Command are dealing with the situation.

Sir C. MacAndrew: How long is this menace likely to go on?

Mr. Dugdale: I am assured that it will be dealt with very expeditiously by the Army authorities.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In view of the fact that this is the holiday month in Scotland, will the Minister give instructions immediately for this matter to be cleared up as fast as possible?

Mr. Dugdale: I will bring the matter to the notice of the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. Pritt: Could not the hon. Gentleman arrange for a number of high Army officers on leave to spend their holidays there?

Thefts, Almondbank

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what action has been taken following the recent thefts at No. 2 Site, R.N. Stores Depot, Almond-bank; what was stolen; to what extent blame attaches to the service police; and whether a full report of the case is to be made.

Mr. Dugdale: There have been two instances of thefts of stop watches and small aircraft dashboard clocks in recent months from No. 2 site. Almondbank. Full investigation has been made inside the depot, and the Perth civil police have been given full particulars in the endeavour to trace the articles, but so far without result. There is no reason to consider the service police are to blame. Full reports of all such cases are made by the local officers to the Admiralty.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that these fairly frequent events in Royal Naval stores depots are really to the credit of the Admiralty?

Mr. Dugdale: I cannot possibly accept the view that there are more thefts in proportion in the Navy than in the other Services or other parts of the country.

Canteens (Catering Licences)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is in accordance with naval regulations for personnel and official canteens at royal naval stores depots to undertake catering in the neighbourhood in which they are situated.

Mr. Dugdale: Canteens at Royal Naval store depots are licensed by the Ministry of Food as catering establishments and if the licence is so endorsed may cater for any social and recreational activities of the depot employees whether held on or off the premises. The regulations do not permit of sale to or catering for the general public.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR CRASH, BICKENHILL (CLAIM)

Sir John Mellor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the crash of a naval aircraft at Castle Hills Farm, Bickenhill, Warwickshire, on 3rd January was reported; when he was informed of the damage done by the R.A.F. in

removing the pieces; and when the tenant was informed that his claim should be sent to his Department instead of the Air Ministry.

Mr. Dugdale: This crash was reported to the Admiralty on 3rd January as a casualty, but as already indicated in the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 19th May, owing to the failure of the parent naval air station to take all the action prescribed for reporting accidents, it was not simultaneously reported as a claim. Notice of the claim in respect of damage caused by the crash and by the salvage operations which were carried out by the local naval authorities was not received until early in May, when the papers were forwarded to the Admiralty by the Air Ministry. I understand the tenant's agent was simultaneously informed that his claim had been so forwarded. Owing to the lapse of time and subsequent dispersal of officers and men, considerable difficulty was experienced in confirming the facts, but a meeting on the site was held on 28th June, as a result of which the claim was settled to the tenant's full satisfaction.

Sir J. Mellor: As damage was admittedly done, will the Minister explain why no communication was made to him by the Admiralty during the four months following the crash?

Mr. Dugdale: I have already explained, and have admitted in full, why the information was not in fact sent to the Admiralty. I have admitted that a mistake was made. Even in the Royal Navy, mistakes do sometimes occur.

Sir J. Mellor: Is not this evidence of not only a mistake but a breakdown in the whole system?

Mr. Dugdale: No, Sir, I could not possibly admit that.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why his director of lands and requisitioning wrote on 7th May to the representative of the tenant of Castle Hills Farm, Bickenhill, Warwickshire, that difficulty had been experienced in establishing the identity of an aircraft which crashed on the farm on 3rd January; and when his Department ascertained this identity.

The Under-Secretary of State for (Mr. de Freitas): I am afraid there was


a misunderstanding when this claim was put to the Air Ministry. The tenant's agent told us that the Royal Air Force had caused the damage. In March, however, our local Works officer found nut that the crashed aircraft had belonged to a naval air station in Scotland; also that the Navy, not the R.A.F., had been responsible for the damage done in taking it away. After these facts had been established, the case was not well handled, and unfortunately none of the information was passed on to the agent or to the Admiralty until early in May. I regret this delay in correcting the original impression that the R.A.F. had any responsibility in the case.

Sir J. Mellor: While I welcome the Under-Secretary's apology, may I ask him to explain why it took four months for the Royal Air Force to discover that a crashed aircraft did not belong to them?

Mr. de Freitas: That is a very difficult point. Unfortunately, as in so many matters, the assumption by everyone concerned, especially the tenant and his agent, was that because it was an aircraft it was one of ours, and we went off entirely on the wrong track. It took some time to discover that, and it was after that that we really slipped up.

Lieut.-Colonel Thorp: Are not aero-plane casualties reported?

Mr. de Freitas: I think my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty disclosed that there was a difficulty here in that a proper claim was not put in by the parent naval station in this case.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AID AND ADVICE SCHEME

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Attorney-General if he has received the detailed scheme for giving legal advice and for the giving of legal aid in civil proceedings prepared by the Law Society on the lines recommended in the Report of the Committee on Legal Aid and Legal Advice in England and Wales; when he expects to receive it; and if he intends to make it available to Members of this House.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to the hon.

Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) on 31st May. I then said that the Law Society were preparing detailed estimates of the probable cost of working their scheme. My noble Friend has today received some estimates from the Law Society, and until they have been examined I am unable to say whether the Law Society's scheme is now complete. The question of presenting the scheme to Parliament cannot be decided until the scheme has been considered by the Government.

Mr. Janner: Can the learned Attorney-General say how long it is likely to be before this scheme comes into operation, as there is considerable need for it?

The Attorney-General: At a time when the Government are faced with many vital and urgent matters, first things have to come first, but we do appreciate the great importance of this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS ASSESSMENT APPEALS TRIBUNALS

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Attorney-General when the pensions assessment appeals tribunals constituted under Order in Council made on 26th June, 1946, will commence their sittings; how many of such tribunals there will be and where located.

The Attorney-General: The pensions assessment appeals tribunals will probably commence their sittings in October. Appeals to these tribunals cannot be instituted until after 25th July, the date on which the Order in Council to which my hon. Friend refers comes into operation, and as appellants will require some time in which to prepare their cases it is not expected that appeals will be ready for hearing until October. The number of assessment tribunals and the areas in which they sit must depend upon the number of appeals received from different parts of the country, and I am not, therefore, in a position at present to answer the last part of the Question.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Attorney-General tell the House whether an announcement will be made telling prospective appellants the procedure for submitting their appeals to the tribunal?

The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir, I will certainly consider that, and bear the matter in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Air Training Corps (Clothing)

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is now in a position to make an issue of overcoats and boots to cadets of the Air Training Corps.

Mr. de Freitas: I am afraid that we cannot make these issues at present.

Mr. Shephard: Is it not a fact that some hundreds of thousands of overcoats have been handed in by demobilised Royal Air Force personnel, and could riot those overcoats have been issued to these cadets who have been waiting ever since the inception of the Corps?

Mr. de Freitas: I am well aware that these cadets have been waiting, and in some cases, complaining. However, I can asure them that their interests are not being overlooked. It is not a matter of only one Department. On the question of what we are to do with the overcoats which have been turned in, those which are serviceable are taken back into stock and reissued to airmen who are called up.

Surplus Explosives (Disposal)

Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when ammunition dumps in the area of West Suffolk will be removed; and what action he is taking to ensure that they cannot be exploded by heath or forest fires.

Mr. de Freitas: As my predecessor has stated in previous replies, the problem of disposal of the enormous quantities of surplus explosives is very serious and there simply is not enough labour or transport to get the whole job done quickly. I am afraid I cannot forecast when our stores of explosives will be cleared away from West Suffolk. Meanwhile we are doing all we can to safeguard them against fire or other dangers. The explosives—which are fenced in and, of course, unfused—are regularly inspected and patrolled.

Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: Is the Minister aware that fire does not stop at a fence, and that there are only ten men to

guard all these places? What further action can he take to see that these dumps do not catch fire?

Mr. de Freitas: I am aware that fire does not stop at a fence. I cannot say that I am aware of the exact number of people involved in the patrols, but I can say that, considering how short we are of men, we are doing all we can and have taken special steps here.

Mr. Assheton: Is it not the case that some of these dumps are being added to with newly manufactured shells?

Mr. de Freitas: I have no information about that.

Horsham St. Faith Airfield

Mr. Medlicott: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that there is still considerable dissatisfaction in Norfolk at the continued use of Horsham St. Faith's aerodrome on the fringe of Norwich; and why it is not possible to use in its place an aerodrome at a more adequate distance from a built-up area.

Mr. de Freitas: There is little I can add to the reply given by my predecessor to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton) on 24th October last, which stated that we cannot give up the use of Horsham St. Faith, because it has complex and expensive installations which are important for the air defence of the United Kingdom. It is, moreover, one of the relatively few Royal Air Force stations which have permanent accommodation for living and working. So far as safety permits, arrangements are made to avoid any flying over Norwich and we plan to reduce night flying from Horsham St. Faith later this year.

Mr. Medlicott: While fully appreciating the great importance of this aerodrome, may I ask if it is still not possible to transfer the installations to one of the other many aerodromes with which Norfolk is so very well provided? Is it not unsuitable for such an aerodrome to be so near a large city?

Mr. de Freitas: The difficulty is that we have spent £250,000 on this airfield. The other airfields in Norfolk—and there are very many—are chiefly airfields without permanent accommodation, and we have not the labour, money and materials to make these enormous changes. We cannot do it.

Quashed Conviction

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he has any statement to make regarding 644870 Corporal T. Potter, R.A.F., I Fortune Street, Bolton, who was convicted by court martial in Burma on 24th October, 1945, and sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude, in respect of which the hon. Member for Bolton has been making representations to him since February, 1946.

Mr. de Freitas: After full consideration of the case, the Air Council have decided that this conviction should be quashed. Corporal Potter is thus cleared of the charge that was made against him.

Mr. Lewis: As this is one of several recent cases in which it has been found necessary for my hon. Friend's Department to give instructions for a conviction to be quashed, will he undertake to have an immediate investigation into court martial procedure in India and Burma with a view to ascertaining what is wrong with the administration of military justice in this area?

Mr. de Freitas: I have not got the information as to the number of cases in which the Air Council has quashed convictions from this area, but there has been only one case like this—that is, a case of alleged rape—in which the Air Council have upset the conviction. I can say front the cases I have seen that the Air Council's decision has been based on the consideration of delicate points of law and evidence in which the balance is very near, and I cannot for a moment admit that there is any reason for criticising the decision of the original courts martial.

Wireless Mechanics (Release)

Mr. Frank Byers: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why no wireless mechanics in the R.A.F. are being released in July; and on what date it is proposed to release wireless mechanics in Group 40.

Mr. de Freitas: The reply I gave on 26th June to the hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison) answers the first part of the hon. Member's Question. Our forecast of August for Group 40 has now been confirmed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

North Ronaldsay Aerodrome

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is aware that the regular air service to North Ronaldsay, Orkney, which was in existence before the outbreak of war, cannot be resumed until the landing ground has been enlarged; and what steps are being taken to deal with the situation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): A survey of the work required to restore and extend North Ronaldsay aerodrome has been carried out by the licensee of the aerodrome, with whom my Department is in consultation.

Croft Aerodrome

Captain Chetwynd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he has considered the possibility of using Croft aerodrome as an airport to serve Teeside and North European countries; and if he has any statement to make.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 19th June to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). Pending the announcement of aerodromes to be acquired for scheduled air services, I regret that I cannot make any statement in particular cases. Croft aerodrome has, of course, come under consideration for the services mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member.

Rawcliffe Aerodrome

Mr. Turton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he has reconsidered the representation of the Flaxton Rural District Council that the Rawcliffe aerodrome should not be established as the civil transport aerodrome of York, in view of the urgent need of housing at the residential neighbourhood in which it is situated; and whether he has come to any decision in this matter.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: My noble Friend has the representations under careful consideration but I regret it is not yet possible to make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this state of indecision is


causing a great deal of difficulty, and is hampering housing developments in this residential area? Will he bear that in mind?

Mr. Thomas: As I have explained elsewhere, the difficulty is one of reconciling local interests, but if the hon. Gentleman will continue to give us his cooperation in getting the swift passage of the Civil Aviation Bill, I will see whether an early decision can be given.

Mr. Turton: Will the hon. Gentleman receive another deputation from the Flaxton Rural District Council on this matter?

Mr. Thomas: I think we know all the facts and I have promised an early decision.

Mr. Turton: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAMEROONS (PRODUCE CULTIVATION)

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made in the development of cooperative cultivation and marketing of bananas and other produce in the Cameroons.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): This matter continues to receive my attention but at present I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 22nd May.

Mr. Rees-Williams: May I ask the Secretary of State whether he has in mind, and is taking action upon, the necessities of Jamaica in these matters? He knows to what I am referring. Is he keeping that closely in mind?

Mr. Hall: That does not arise out of this Question, but we are, as my hon. Friend knows, doing all we can to resuscitate the banana industry in Jamaica.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAY UNION (CLOTHING SHORTAGE)

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is

aware of the shortage of clothing in Malaya; aria what steps he is taking to remedy this position.

Mr. George Hall: I am aware that there is a shortage of clothing in Malaya, as elsewhere. I am arranging for the procurement through Government channels of as much as possible of the stocks of surplus military clothing available in the United Kingdom. I am also giving all practicable facilities for importations through ordinary trade channels.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH BORNEO (COMPANY PENSIONERS)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any increase in pension rates is envisaged for retired pensioners of the various colonial services, to include employees of the British North Borneo Company which is to be taken over by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. George Hall: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 29th May to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). The question of any increase to the pensions of employees of the British North Borneo Company will be a matter for consideration by the Government of North Borneo when the transfer of administration takes effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — CEYLON (INDIANS, FRANCHISE)

Mrs. Ganley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the franchise position of Indian workers under the new constitution in Ceylon.

Mr. George Hall: The existing franchise arrangements for Indian workers in Ceylon will not be altered by the new Constitution. Any future alteration of these arrangements would be a matter for direct negotiations between the Ceylon and Indian Governments.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA

Housing

Mr. George Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans have been made by the Government of British Guiana to provide housing at low


rents; and whether he is satisfied such plans are adequate to meet the need for improved housing conditions in this colony.

Mr. George Hall: A Rural Housing Committee was appointed in 1943, and, arising out of its report, a free grant of £16,130 and a loan of £9,766 have been made for an experimental scheme in one district. A further free grant of £26,050 for houses in rural areas has also been made. A scheme of housing in Georgetown has also been started, to build some 48 new houses to alleviate the worst of the situation. The urgent needs of housing are being fully considered in the Colony's 10 year development plan and it is hoped to allocate at least some £200,000 to £300,000 to housing.

Education

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans the Government of British Guiana has for the provision of a satisfactory education system for the territory and, in particular, for technical schools and vocational training.

Mr. George Hall: As the answer is necessarily rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The Government of British Guiana have given much consideration to the improvement of educational facilities in the Colony; but pending the completion and acceptance of the general Development Plan for the Colony a final decision on the general measure to he put in hand is not feasible.

Steps already taken in regard to technical schools and vocational training include the following there is a prevocational school known as the Kingston Trades Centre for Youths, Georgetown. It is planned to turn it into a junior technical school and eventually into a full technical high school. A free grant of £5,340 has been made from Colonial Development and Welfare funds for the appointment of a principal and a technical instructor. In addition there is the Carnegie Trade School providing vocational training for women. A free grant of £4,045, together with a supplementary grant of £625, has been made to provide evening classes in cookery and dress-

making, courses in domestic science for the general public and the training of teachers in domestic science.

Besides these two schools, vocational training is provided at an experimental community centre, at which a number of trades are taught; also elsewhere a Government primary school is working in cooperation with a land settlement scheme and a health centre and teaches improved farming and animal husbandry. For both these schemes grants have been made from Colonial Development and Welfare funds.

Sugar Price

Mr. G. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the-current price paid for sugar imported from British Guiana; how this price compares with prices in 1939 and during the war years; and whether he is satisfied that this price is an adequate return to the industry to enable it to provide its workers with satisfactory conditions of life.

Mr. George Hall: The Ministry of Food's buying price for Colonial sugar is fixed with due regard to increases in costs, including wages and expenditure by the industry on workers' welfare. The. Ministry of Food's f.o.b. price for the 1946 crop of British Guiana sugar is £18 10s. per ton. In 1939, the equivalent price was £10 5s. Prices have risen at intervals during the war years and I will circulate the actual figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

F.o.b. prices, per ton, for British Guiana sugar (basis 96° polarisation):






£
s.
d.


September, 1939
…
…
…
10
5
0


June, 1940
…
…
…
11
12
6


January, 1942
…
…
…
12
15
0


January,1943
…
…
…
13
5
0


January,1944
…
…
…
14
5
0


January,1945
…
…
…
16
5
0


January,1946
…
…
…
18
10
0

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE

Arms Caches

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what mechanical aids were used in the searches for illegal arms carried out at Yagur, near Haifa; how many trees were uprooted; what other damage to property was caused; and


what estimate can be given of the total damage inflicted on this settlement by the searchers for illegal arms.

Mr. George Hall: Various mechanical implements were used to uncover caches of arms, the presence of which had been indicated by mine detectors. Some 20 vines were damaged by tracked vehicles passing through a section of the vineyard near the settlement buildings, where it was necessary to uncover concealed arms caches. This settlement was literally honeycombed with them. In all 33 such caches were found, some in bogus culverts and dummy sewers, others beneath floors and above ceilings or in secret cupboards behind false panels. Some were in the children's dormitory and school.
The arms discovered included 92 two inch mortars, 5,267 mortar bombs, 5,017 Grenades, to machine guns, 321 rifles, 78 pistols, 1,404 magazines, 425,000 rounds of ammunition, in addition to quantities of demolition explosives and other military stores and equipment.
The damage necessitated by the operation of unearthing these munitions of war was in the circumstances not only insignificant but entirely justified. I am convinced that no other Army in the world would have been capable of carrying out such a difficult task with so much consideration and forbearance.

Arrests

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reasons the Palestine Government compelled orthodox Jews to desecrate their Sabbath when carrying out their arrest; whether he is aware of the affront to religious feelings caused by this action; and what steps he now proposes to take to remove the painful impressions aroused in Palestine by this action of the Government.

Mr. George Hall: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) on 1st of July, namely that this matter was left entirely to the local authorities to decide.

Dr. Segal: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this debasing of religious and administrative standards could only be justified in time of war; and does he

realise that no action on the part of His Majesty's Government could have done more to persuade the Jewish population that it is now engaged in a holy war in defence of its religious liberties?

Mr. Hall: It was necessary to carry out this action with the least possible inconvenience, and it was necessary to leave the matter, as stated, in the hands of those who were best competent to judge.

Mr. Wilson Harris: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman who it was who began the acts of war?

Mr. S. Silverman: While one understands that the decision on time and place and method in such a matter would have to be left to the local authorities, in view of the fact that the local authorities chose an entirely unsuitable time has my right hon. Friend asked them for any explanation of why they chose the early hours of Saturday morning?

Mr. Hall: No, Sir, they have not been asked for any explanation; indeed the results of the action itself have justified the action taken.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary State' for the Colonies the number of leaders and officers of Jewish trade unions, Socialist parties, and co-operative societies, who have been arrested in recent operations in Palestine.

Mr. George Hall: The information requested by my hon. Friend is not in my possession, but I am asking the, High Commissioner for Palestine for a report, and will communicate with my hon. Friend when this is received.

Mr. Michael Foot: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has such detailed evidence about arms secured in various places, is it not extraordinary that he has not detailed evidence of the number of men taken into custody by the British administration in Palestine?

Mr. Hall: We have the numbers, but it is difficult to classify them, because a very substantial number have already been released.

Oral Answers to Questions — MARRIED WOMEN (NATIONALITY)

Mr. Osbert Peake: asked the Prime Minister whether, arising out of the recent


meeting of representatives of Dominion Governments, it is proposed to introduce legislation, at an early date, regarding the nationality of married women.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 4th June in answer to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cambridge (Major Symonds). Communications have been sent to the Dominion Governments, which were represented at the recent meeting of Prime Ministers, and any further statement must await the receipt of their replies.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN COMMERCIAL BROADCASTS

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Lord President of the Council what are the grounds for the Government's announced policy of preventing British listeners from hearing commercial radio programmes from abroad; and how it is proposed to effect this.

Mr. H. Morrison: This is a free country, and anyone can listen to what he likes, but the Government consider that on general grounds it is undesirable that wavelengths in foreign hands should be used for advertising campaigns directed at the British public. As regards the latter part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply, which I gave to the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) on 25th June.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Why should the Government decide what is desirable or undesirable in a matter like this, in this free country?

Mr. Morrison: I have said it is a free country, and even the Government are entitled to express their opinion.

Mr. Churchill: Are we then to understand that the British public are free to listen to anything they like, and anything they can, but that the Government will exercise restraining force on what is allowed to reach their ears?

Mr. Morrison: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is in the affirmative, and to the latter part, in the negative.

Mr. Churchill: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that the Government will have their own view as to the wavelengths which are permitted to be used?

Mr. Morrison: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the answers which were given, I think that will be clear to him. In our view, it is undesirable that foreign countries should direct their broadcasting at this country for advertising purposes, on a number of grounds. But, if the citizen likes to listen to these broadcasts, there is nothing to prevent him, any more than there is to prevent him reading the "Spectator," if he wants to.

Mr. Churchill: Or the "Tribune," on Egypt.

An Hon. Member: No advertising.

Mr. Churchill: Do I gather that the Government intend to exercise a discriminatory control over the wavelengths on which the British public are allowed to hear statements made from foreign stations?

Mr. Morrison: I am most anxious not to get into a quarrelsome mood with the right hon. Gentleman, but we have said nothing of the kind.

Mr. Churchill: What did the right hon. Gentleman say just now?

Mr. Morrison: If the right hon. Gentleman will look it up in HANSARD tomorrow, he will find that I did not say what he thinks I said.

Mr. Churchill: But I was here, listening, and have the evidence of my ears to give me a very clear impression that the right hon. Gentleman was reserving to the Government powers of discrimination in respect of wavelengths.

Mr. Morrison: No, with great respect. In an international conference, the Government are quite entitled to argue about wavelengths, but, as far as I know, even this Government are not in a position to interfere with wavelengths at this moment.

Mr. Churchill: What is meant by "at this moment"? May I remind the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will recall the fact that during the war we, alone I think among all


the belligerent countries, allowed anything to come in over the broadcasts from other countries, knowing that the people's good sense would place it in its proper relation?

Mr. Morrison: There is a great deal of truth in what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I share with him our pride. Nevertheless, if I may remind him, under his Government there was a certain amount of jamming which went on, in order to impede these activities.

Mr. Churchill: But this is peacetime jamming.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (PRISONERS WITHOUT TRIAL)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many prisoners are now awaiting trial in the British zone in Austria without any charge being preferred against them; how many have been waiting over three and six months, respectively; how many judges are trying such prisoners; and how many there were fulfilling the same functions before the war.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The only prisoners held without a charge preferred against them are some 7,000 dangerous Nazis and security suspects, most of whom have been held for more than six months; whether or not they are eventually tried will depend upon the outcome of the Nuremberg trials. Some 6,500 persons who have been charged with criminal offences are held in custody pending their trial in the Austrian courts. Of these approximately 1,100 have been held for more than three months and about 40 for more than six months. Seventy-two full time judges and 66 part-time judges are engaged in trying these cases, as against 102 and 99 respectively before the war

Mr. Freeman: Does this not indicate a very large number of prisoners held without trial or even charges preferred against them? Could not the hon. Gentleman consider these cases on their merits, irrespective of the Nuremburg trials, and that those not associated in any way with Nazi activities should be considered and tried on their merits?

Mr. Hynd: In reply to the latter part of that question, those not in any way associated with Nazi activities and not guilty of any social crime under Austrian law, will not be held for trial. In regard to the other categories, I can assure the House that this is one of our biggest headaches, and it is a tremendous task to keep control of these people. Unfortunately, it is a necessary thing. But, in so far as it is within the security possibility, we are taking every possible step to reduce these numbers.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Food Surveys

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Food how many persons are engaged in the present Food Survey in calling on housewives and taking records of what each household eats; how many persons are engaged on administration of this scheme; and what is its total cost per annum.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): No officers of my Ministry are so engaged. This work is 'undertaken under contract by market research agencies. Within the Ministry, in addition to a small clerical staff, nine persons are engaged on the administration of the survey work, and the analysis and interpretation of the data. Total expenditure on the projected food surveys in 1946/47.is estimated at £135,000.

Mr. Churchill: Would the right hon. Gentleman state the number of persons in the clerical staff?

Mr. Strachey: I am afraid I would have to have notice in regard to the Ministry of Food, but I can get the information.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the justification for this expense, in view of the fact that he must know today, more than at any other time, what families are eating? Does he realise what annoyance it is causing to the housewife?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, we regard this consumer research as of vital importance. In doing so—hon Members opposite may like to take note of this—we are, following the example of all the largest and most enlightened business firms

Points Values

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food whether he is proposing to reduce the points value of tinned meats and fish.

Mr. Strachey: I am afraid I cannot make any advance announcement about changes in points values. Changes are announced on the first day of each ration period.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department taken the trouble to collect information as to the stocks of higher pointed commodities, such as tinned stewed steak which is in the shops at present unsold, and, at present points values, practically unsaleable?

Mr. Strachey: We watch our pointed goods with great care, and if any change appears to be necessary, we shall certainly make any adjustment that appears wise.

Milk Registration (Transfers)

Mr. J. Lewis: asked the Minister of Food if he will now give permission to those who desire to do so to transfer registrations from milk retailers who have been convicted for maintaining cowsheds in dirty conditions and failing to cause a dairy in which milk is kept to be thoroughly cleansed, thus rendering the milk liable to be contaminated or infected.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. I shall in future always give permission to those who desire to transfer their registrations from milk retailers who have been convicted for maintaining cowsheds in dirty conditions.

Fruit and Vegetables (Profit Margins)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food if he is prepared to adopt the principle of controlled retail profit margins on fruit and vegetables as outlined in a memorandum by the hon. Member for Taunton, in March, 1946, of which a copy has been sent him, with a view to ending the system of exorbitant retail prices for produce for which the growers receive less than the cost of production.

Mr. Strachey: I have considered this proposal very carefully, as I am most anxious to reduce what certainly strikes one at first sight as the altogether excessive spread between retail and producer prices in fruit and vegetables. But I do not

pretend to have come to any conclusions as yet on what ought to be done about it.

Shopkeepers (Discrimination)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking to prevent shopkeepers from refusing to sell fruit ors the first-come first-served principle, in order to discriminate in favour of certain customers; and what steps persons discriminated against should take.

Mr. Strachey: I should not like to embark on an attempt to control the conduct of shopkeepers in this matter.

Mr. Reid: Will my right hon. Friend answer the last part of my Question?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir, I am afraid can offer my hon. Friend very little advice on that point.

Building Workers

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Food approximately what percentage of building trade workers are provided with canteen facilities or packed meals, or are employed in areas where there are suitable catering facilities; and if he will reconsider sympathetically, in consultation with the Advisory Committee of the T.U.C., the difficulties of the minority of these workers, mainly in remote rural areas, who have no such facilities and who are working too far from home to return home for the mid-day meal.

Mr. Strachey: I am afraid the figures for which my hon. Friend asks are not available. Where building workers have no facilities for a mid-day meal, my divisional food officers and the Ministry of Labour will, however, be glad to advise the employers about establishing a packed meat service. I have just approached the advisory committee of the T.U.C. to see whether something more cannot be done for this category of workers.

Mr. Driberg: Does that apply to quite small employers in rural areas as well?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, it is just in respect of those small employers in rural areas where the difficulty arises, I agree, and where the establishment of a packed meal service may be practicable. I know myself of cases of great difficulty there and I would very much like to find a way of dealing with it.

Mr. Charles Smith: Will my right hon. Friend look into the possibility of using mobile canteens?

Mr. Strachey: We have looked into that possibility, but unfortunately all the mobile canteens have been used up on other purposes at the moment.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider increasing the rations for children who have to attend schools far from home, which do not serve lunches?

Mr. Strachey: I very much doubt whether it would be possible to discriminate in rationing between children, other than by age group, but I will certainly consider any point raised.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: As the Minister is proposing to make special arrangements for these workers in the building trade in rural areas, might I ask him not to forget that they do not suffer anything like the same difficulty as do agricultural workers who live there?

Mr. Strachey: In this respect the agricultural worker does get the extra cheese ration, and will get an extra bread ration.

Ice Cream (Milk)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that milk producers who make ice cream have been told by officers of his Department that they cannot use separated milk for ice cream unless they have a caterer's licence; that this causes waste of surplus separated milk and of milk powder and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that every available amount of milk properly produced reaches the general public.

Mr. Strachey: The use of separated milk, except by Caterers, for making ice cream is prohibited by the Use of Milk (Restriction) Order; I am advised that this restriction does not lead to avoidable waste of separated milk or of milk powder or that any measures, other than those now being taken, are needed to ensure the full and fair distribution of the milk which is produced.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain cases officials of his Ministry have told producers of this milk that they cannot use their surplus separated milk for ice cream, as they have done in the past, and that the separated milk must, therefore, be thrown away?

Mr. Strachey: If the hon. and gallant Member will give me examples of that, I shall be very glad to look into them.

Wellington Markets Hall

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: asked the Minister of Food if arrangements can be made for the derequisitioning at an early date, at the request of the Wellington, Salop, urban district council, of the Wellington Markets Hall, now used as a food buffer depot.

Mr. Strachey: The Wellington Markets Hall will be derequisitioned in about six weeks' time.

Danish Supplies

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Minister of Food whether his Department is fully informed regarding surplus food stocks in Denmark; and what consultations he has held with Denmark with a view to making such surpluses available in countries suffering grave shortages, including this country.

Mr. Strachey: One of my officers is now permanently stationed at Copenhagen. He represents the Ministry of Food on the Allied and Danish Executive Food Surplus Committee, and strenuous efforts will be made to increase our food supplies from this and other sources.

Mr. Chamberlain: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is strong evidence as to considerable surpluses of various foodstuffs, including butter, in Denmark, and will he use every possible effort to see that it is properly disposed of to those countries which badly need it?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. Of course, we are importing Danish butter and I hope to continue to do so.

Mr. Peter Freeman: Will my right hon. Friend consider inviting a deputation from Denmark to visit this country as he has done in the case of Eire to consider what can be obtained from there in the way of food supplies?

Mr. Strachey: At the moment the negotiations are going on the other way round, in Copenhagen.

Fruit Lotteries (Fairs)

Mr. Chamberlain: asked the Minister of Food whether he approves the prac-


tice of disposal of fruit at fairs by means of lottery tickets; or what steps he is taking to prevent this practice.

Mr. Strachey: On the whole I think it would be carrying the principle of controls too far to interfere with this practice.

Mr. Chamberlain: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is a rather pernicious practice that at fairs people should buy tickets at 6d. each in order to secure cherries and apples, and does this not cut right across the policy of the control?

Mr. Strachey: It is a question of degree, and I would be rather loth to take action in the matter.

Flour Packing

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of flour rationing, he will revoke the prohibition on packing flour in bags containing less than three pounds by packers other than retailers; and if he will arrange for smaller bags to be available to packers.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, I am making arrangements for the smaller bags to be available to packers as soon as possible.

Sir J. Mellor: Does the Minister mean that he has revoked the prohibition?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir.

Bread Rationing

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Food if, for the purposes of bread rationing, he will regard housewives, with children under 16 years of age, as manual workers.

Mr. Strachey: I should very much like to be able to make a concession of this kind. I will most carefully consider this and all the other suggestions which have been made in the course of the public discussions of the bread rationing scheme. But of course one claim must be weighed against another and against the supply position.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that housewives with children are in a position equal to that of female manual workers with regard to effort and the need for sustenance, and will he make this allowance, even if it means adjustments in other directions?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot give a pledge here today. I cannot go further than what I have said, that I will weigh this claim against other claims and against the supply position.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Is the Minister aware that this aspect of bread rationing is causing more dissatisfaction than any other?

Mr. Warbey: When my right hon. Friend is considering this question, will he bear in mind that a housewife with several hefty adults for whom she has to cook, wash, clean and generally cleanup, is also worthy of consideration?

Cheese (Catering Establishments)

Mr. Frank Byers: asked the Minister of Food the quantity of cheese issued to restaurants, hotels and catering establishments, other than canteens, in an average month.

Mr. Strachey: The average allocation of cheese to hotels, restaurants, cafes and milk bars is running at some 500 tons a month. This is about 4 per cent, of total civilian consumption.

Mr. Byers: Would it not be possible to allocate this cheese to the building operatives and other people in rural areas who require packed meals, and for whom canteen facilities are not available? Will the Minister look into that?

Mr. Strachey: It would be possible, but only by depriving hotels, restaurants and catering establishments, many of which are catering for very deserving sections of the population.

Catering Establishments (Meals Records)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that many hotels and restaurants return to his food offices figures of meals eaten which are not always correct; and whether, to overcome this, he will make it compulsory for bills to be issued to customers for all main meals served.

Mr. Strachey: The inspections of catering establishments that already take place, together with the Order requiring them to keep accurate records of meals served, are our effective instruments for preventing abuses of this kind. But I will certainly look into the question of enforcement again.

Smithfield Market (Strike)

Mr. Churchill: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Food if he has any statement to make on the Smithfield meat strike, and what action he is prepared to take to ensure London's meat supply.

Mr. Strachey: I am informed that officials of the Ministry of Labour met representatives of the employers and workers concerned this morning. Arrangements have been made to distribute the comparatively small supplies already in the market and the men have agreed to resume work for this purpose. It has also been arranged for the Conciliation Board to meet this afternoon in an endeavour to reach a settlement. I am, of course, in close consultation with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transport as to the best measure for minimising the effect of this dispute, should it continue, on London's meat supply.

Mr. Churchill: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some assurance that the meat supply of London will be maintained and that there will not be great loss of perishable commodities?

Mr. Strachey: As to loss of perishable commodities, this latest information that the men have agreed to distribute the stock actually in the market is reassuring, but undoubtedly if the dispute continues for very much longer there is bound to be some interference with meat distribution, and we do regard it as of the utmost importance that a settlement should be reached promptly.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOAP

Mr. Rees-Williams: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the cut in the soap ration, he will issue supplementary soap coupons to those persons who, through lack of means or lack of laundry facilities, are obliged to wash at home their clothing, linen and other household requisites.

Mr. Strachey: I realise that households unable to make use of a laundry find it difficult to manage on the reduced soap ration, but I am afraid that supplies are

so short that I cannot make the extra allowances suggested.

Mr. Daggar: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware that Members of Parliament are receiving complaints from mining areas regarding the supply of soap; and if he will take measures to deal with the position.

Mr. Strachey: I have received complaints about deliveries of soap in South Wales being late. I am taking energetic steps to see that this does not happen again. If hon. Members will send me particulars of any complaints they have received I will gladly look into them.

Mr. Daggar: The point here is as to the possibility of giving miners a larger quantity of soap, not unequal distribution.

Mr. Strachey: I thought my hon. Friend was referring to the fact that there had been distribution difficulties there. On the other point, I am afraid I can satisfy him less, because the supply position is very difficult indeed.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Will the Minister bear in mind that these complaints of soap shortage are by no means confined to mining areas, but extend over the whole country?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing more statistics and figures showing what the oils and fats position is to justify the cut?

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving a little less soap to the soft water districts and a little more to hard water districts, keeping the total ration the same?

Mr. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question about figures.

Mr. Strachey: On the figures, I must not be pressed on the point I made in the House last week—I can be pressed, but I must resist such pressure—to extend the disclosure of stock figures to other commodities. I am afraid that the fats position is only too clear a justification of the need for economy in fats. The difficulties there are certainly the greatest which face us in any commodity.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,

from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 121.

SOAP (RATIONING) ORDER

7.37 P.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move,
That the Order, dated 18th June, 1946, amending the Soap (Licensing of Manufacturers and Rationing) (No. 2) Order, 1945 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 871), a copy of which amending Order was presented on 24th June, be annulled.
I move this Motion in conjunction with my hon. Friends in order to challenge the Government to justify the cut of one-seventh in the soap ration, which has been recently made. We take this course because we recognise the great hardship which has been inflicted upon households throughout the country through this cut. The cut is especially severe in the hard water districts. It also affects laundries, and, perhaps, I should disclose that I have a small private interest in that business. It will have the effect that there will be little chance now of laundries being able to provide any increased assistance for the harassed housewife. At the same time, of course, it must be remembered that the overriding difficulty of the laundries has been the shortage of labour.
The announcement was first made by the Minister of Food in a broadcast on 16th June. That announcement was supplemented by his Parliamentary Secretary at a Press conference on the morning of 18th June. That was the day upon which the House reassembled after the Whitsun Recess. But no announcement or explanation was made to this House. The Order came into force on 23rd June, but was not presented to Parliament until 24th June. I repeat, that no comprehensive explanation has been made to this House of the necessity for this cut in the soap ration. Indeed, no comprehensive explanation has been made at all—at all events since the White Paper was issued in April.
The White Paper entitled, "The World Food Shortage," issued at the beginning of April, Command Paper 6785, contained four paragraphs dealing with the present situation of oils and fats. Turning over the pages, one comes to Part II of the White Paper entitled, "Measures Taken By His Majesty's Government To Meet The Crisis." It is rather significant that as one turns over these pages one finds no reference whatsoever to oils or fats, except under a short

paragraph referring to whales. No reference is made to the great field of production of oils and fats, except the rather dismal account of the whaling prospects. I think that that curious omission of any constructive proposals is in keeping with the statement made by the Minister in the course of the Debate on 31st May. He then said:
Our great difficulty—and we say this most openly and frankly—is in the great staples of cereals and fats, and it is there that we face a situation of great menace. It is in this respect, therefore, as my right hon. Friend has already mentioned, that we are going to take precautionary measures with which I will deal in greater detail later."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 31st May, 1946; Vol. 423, C. 1569.]
He said that he would deal "in greater detail," but so far as fats are concerned he made no further reference in the course of the Debate, except for a very brief reference to Egyptian cotton seed. When one considers the contents and omissions in the White Paper, and the reference of the Minister to "precautionary measures," it is perfectly clear that the only type of precaution which the Government had in mind was restrictive in the sense of rationing. The confusion in the Ministry throughout this period seems to have been unfortunate. I will give one illustration. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), in the course of the Debate on 4th April, made these observations:
Before I go on to the question of home food production, I will deal with fats. I refer to the muddle of 22nd March. It will be remembered that on 23rd March, the papers came out with a statement emanating from the Ministry of Food that there was likely to be a cut of one-eighth of an ounce in margarine in the following eight days, and a reduction of one-seventh in the amount of soap. That was denied the following day from No. 10 Downing Street. It was stated that the Cabinet had not decided then and that if the cuts were made, they would be less than suggested. It will be remembered that the right hon Gentleman the Minister came back from Washington land was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) to explain this matter. He started off by saying there was no contradiction; but on the following day he admitted that a regrettable error had been made.—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 4th April. 1946; Vol. 421, CS. 1421–22.]
I ask the Minister what has occurred since then to decide the Government to make-a cut in the soap ration. Obviously, the matter was considered then, and was considered with some anxiety. Will the Minister, when he comes to reply, explain


what developments have altered the decision of the Government? I am afraid that the confusion in the Department apparently still persists; it does not seem to be well acquainted with the facts of the business. I put down a Written Question, on 8th July, addressed to the Minister of Food, in which I asked him:
what quantity of soap has been exported from the United Kingdom during each of the last three quarters, excluding soap for His Majesty's Forces; to what destination has it been consigned: and why was it exported.
I also put down a Question for a written reply, addressed to the President of the Board of Trade, asking him:
if he will state the tonnage and value of oils, fats and greases exported from the United Kingdom during the past nine months; and the destination and the purpose of such exports.
Although I have pressed both Ministries since last Monday to let me have the replies to which I am entitled, they have been unable or unwilling to produce them. I can only think from what I know that they are unable to give a reply, because I had a message from the Board of Trade saying that they were having some difficulty in obtaining the facts. That seems a very strange answer to a straightforward, simple question on an essential matter, particularly when this Debate was in prospect. I hope that the Minister, during this Debate, will, at least, be able to give me the information for which I have asked. I would particularly like to know what exports have been made to the United States. I wish also to ask him about imports from the United States, because it was stated in the White Paper to which I have referred that, whereas before the war the United States was a large importer of fat, now, owing to developments, it has become a small net exporter. On that point, I would remind the House that on 14th February the then Minister of Food said:
As a result of all these circumstances, in 1946 we shall be short of our total oil supplies by well over 100,000 tons. The cut of one ounce in the cooking fat ration will go some way to meet this position but not all the way. I shall endeavour to find means of replacing some of this deficiency this winter. I shall aim at getting more from American hogs, for example, for if hogs are to be killed in America owing to the shortage of foodstuffs, there should be more lard. But I warn the House that it is another dollar proposition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1946; Vol. 419, c. 576.]

I ask the Minister whether the question of importing fats from the United States is still to be regarded as a dollar proposition because, last Saturday, it was announced by the Board of Trade that they would permit a great variety of articles, including cosmetics, imitation jewellery and fountain pens to be imported from the United States of America. If the question of the import of fats is still a dollar proposition, it seems to me to be a strange thing to say to the people of Birmingham, for instance:
You have to incur a cut in your soap ration; but, at the same time, you are going to have the pleasure of finding the English market invaded by American imitation jewellery, so you will be able to enjoy some intense competition
I would ask the Minister if he would tell us something about the production in West Africa. Yesterday, in the course of the Debate on colonial affairs, the Colonial Secretary said:
A bumper crop of groundnuts had just been harvested in Nigeria. Supplies of this valuable source of fat, are, however, so short, and are likely to be for some years to come, that the Government have decided to make a special investigation of a project for large scale new production of groundnuts in East Africa. A team of expert investigators is now in Tanganyika carrying out that investigation.
This is the point:
We have also just decided to send a mission to West Africa to see what assistance can be given to increase production, and to speed up the transport of groundnuts and palm kernels."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1946; Vol. 425, C. 255–6.]
I would ask, "Why only now?" Why is the Ministry only now deciding to take these steps, in view of the admittedly desperate shortage over here, because I understand that palm kernel oil is plentiful in West Africa? No doubt, it is a question of collection and transport, but why only now has the Ministry decided to take this act and send out a mission? Whether it will be helpful now is a matter on which I would like to express no opinion; but if it would be helpful now, would it not have been at least as helpful, if it had been sent some time ago? Surely, the question of vetting oil from West Africa, whether it is a question of production or collection or transport, is very largely a question of getting the native labour to work. As I understand it, the native of West Africa is not prepared to work, unless he is able to buy something with the money he earns. He is not interested in a savings campaign;


he wants to be able to buy—whether it is jewellery or bicycles or sewing machines—something which we can produce. What are the Government doing to export the sort of things that the West African native desires to buy?
I will now pass to Australia. My information is—I cannot pledge myself as to its accuracy—that Australia has offered to sell to this country 5,000 tons of soap. I would ask the Minister to say whether that is correct or not, and, if it is correct, whether we accepted or rejected the offer; and, if we rejected it, why. With regard to the Argentine, on 26th June, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, in a written reply to a Question, said:
Approximately 7.000 tons of linseed oil is being shipped from Argentina in Russian-owned tankers. The Combined Food Board have consented to the transaction on the understanding that the oil is sold to U.N.R.R.A as part of U.N.R.R.A.'s allocation and that it is distributed in territories for which U N.R.R.A. is responsible. I understand that the price for this oil has not been finally settled. —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June 1946; Vol. 424, C. 185.]
It is being shipped in Russian bottoms, and, therefore, is presumably going to Russian occupied territory, whether it is going to be distributed through the medium of U.N.R.R.A. or not. If this very precious oil is going from Argentina to Russia, without any serious attempt on our part to outbid Russia and obtain the oil for ourselves, I think that that is a grave misfortune, especially in view of the fact that Russia is now in occupation of Manchuria, which, before the war, was a great producer of soya bean oil—one of the greatest producers of vegetable oil in the world. Now that the Russians are there, we are getting none of this oil. If the Combined Food Board is going to assist Russia, surely we ought to insist that Russia should make some contribution to the oil to be distributed by the Combined Food Board.
I would also ask the Minister if he would tell us the present position with regard to Egyptian cotton seed. Are we getting any of that now? Has he made inquiries as to the possibility of getting substantial quantities of oil from the Babassu nut, which, I understand, grows prolifically in Brazil? There is also the possibility of getting quantities of poppy seed oil from Turkey, which is quite good for cooking purposes. Is the Minister of

Agriculture trying to do anything to develop the growing of sunflower seeds in this country?
Now I come to the question of soap substitutes. If these are to be of any use in the present circumstances, when obviously we cannot use natural oils and fats in the process, they will have to be derived from petroleum or coal products. I am told that, so far, the use of soap substitutes has proved singularly disappointing—that if they cleanse, they are apt to damage the fabric. I hope that the Ministry will try to encourage more favourable developments. I understand that the Ministry of Food, in 1945, sent out a Committee to report on the German oil and fat industry. I should like to know whether it derived any hope from that quarter. The Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary have both said, on more than one occasion, that they are giving every encouragement to the development of soap substitutes, and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman what form that encouragement has taken. On 19th June, Lord Woolton made a speech, in which he said:
I believe that if the Ministry of Food were to allow the importers of fat, who know where to get it a lot better than a lot of temporary civil servants, to go and find it, and give them a ceiling price, we would be surprised at the amount which would come to this country. The Government say it is impossible because they are being regulated by a Combined Food Board in Washington. But we do not want regulations, we want fats. If we let the private enterpriser get out and do his job, we would have more food and less rationing.
That speech was made at a meeting of the Royal Empire Society on l9th June, and reading from the same copy of the "Daily Telegraph" I come to a speech made on the same day by the Lord President of the Council, in which he said he laid down three conditions necessary to provide adequate food for all. The first condition was:
Control of production, importation, distribution and sale of food to ensure"—

Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT): The hon. Member must remember that we are dealing with an Order concerning soap and not food or food distribution.

Sir J. Mellor: I am much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but, of course, as far as oils and fats are concerned, the issue is indistinguishable from that of soap.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman mentioned importation, distribution and sale of food and I pointed out that we are debating a Prayer to annul an Order concerned with soap.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Further to that point of Order. I submit to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with very great respect, that the oil out of which soap is made is also available for the making of margarine. I would call your attention to the Government White Paper, Command Paper 6785, dealing with oils and fats, page 13, paragraphs 38, 39, 40 and 41 from which the soap rationing Order arises. Oil, is, in fact, included as part of the essential commodities of the world food shortage. I submit that, from a technical point of view, soap and food have some interconnection one with the other.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I still emphasise the point that we are not discussing either the world food shortage or food, but soap. This Prayer is for the annulment of an Order that has relation to soap. Admittedly it is understandable that certain oils can be used both for food purposes and for the manufacture of soap. It is perfectly in Order to deal with the production and purchase of any oils or fats used in soap manufacture, but it is not in order to relate it to the general food shortage or food distribution.

Sir J. Mellor: That places us in a very great difficulty, knowing the very close, almost inextricable, association between oils and fat and soap, and I think the Minister will be in a great difficulty when he comes to reply. At any rate, I think I am safe in saving that the Lord President of the Council concluded by remarking that this control was to ensure increasingly plentiful supplies at reasonable prices. I think that the two statements, one made by Lord Woolton and the other by the Lord President of the Council, placed in juxtaposition, are very significant and the people of this country should be given the right to choose between the two views as soon as they get an opportunity. The Government are not letting individual enterprise work nor are they administering the position. The country is now getting the worst of both worlds, and I think we, on this side of the House are fully justified, in view of the confusion, incompetence and uncertainty of the Government in handling this

matter, in moving a Prayer to annul this Order.

Mr. Boothby: Mr. Boothby (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Eastern) rose——

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is your intention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to call upon an hon. Member to second this Prayer?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) was going to do so.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Mr. Lennox-Boyd indicated dissent.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: In that case I call Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre.

8.5 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to second the Motion.
In the first place, I should like to emphasise that we on this side of the House have no intention of praying for the annulment of the Order without asking for reasons, but we are completely debarred through lack of facts or figures from making up our minds on whether this soap rationing is justified or not. The only figures available are those in the Trade and Navigation Returns but when we come to the column dealing with the imports of soap we find a blank. Therefore, there is no way in which any Member of this House can make up his mind on the full facts. It is only possible to guess, to ask questions and to hope that the Minister will be able to provide an answer. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), who moved this Prayer, has made certain very relevant observations about supplies, and I should like to ask the Minister a few more questions. In the first place, one of our greatest sources of materials for soap manufacture before the war was Argentina. We are not getting from that country anything now, but I am told that the imports of soap, particularly in Southern and Central America, have increased out of all knowledge since the beginning of this war. Where are these imports coming from, and where are the imports going which hitherto came into this country? What has the Minister done to try to compete for that soap, which is now available in Central and Southern America? Does he know how much there is, and what


steps has he taken to get hold of it? We are assured that all fats from Argentina for export are placed at the disposal of the Combined Food Board. I should like to ask the Minister to give a categorical assurance that that is so. There are strong rumours regarding the exports of fats, and suggestions that Argentina is not playing the game with the Combined Food Board. Can the Minister assure us from his own knowledge, that that is not so, and that all fats available are made available to the Combined Food Board? If he can do that, how can he correlate that with the increased imports into South America?

Mr. Edward Porter: Can the hon. and gallant Member give us any evidence for his statement?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I was very careful to point out when I was referring to this matter that these are rumours. I was hoping that the Minister would have information to refute them. I said nobody in any part of the House, except the Minister, had the full facts on which alone it is possible to judge the position. We on this side of the House are asking the right hon. Gentleman to justify something for which he has given no explanation to this House. He has merely made a broadcast to the nation, and held a Press conference. He has given this House, which is still responsible for the government of this country, absolutely no explanation of this matter. We are told, again in a Press conference, that the Minister is making urgent representations to Ireland to get more meat. [HON. MEMBERS: "Soap.] If he gets more meat from Ireland he will get more fat and fat is used in the manufacture of soap. Why has the Minister not previously made arrangements to get this fat? Everyone knows that in Ireland there is a great deal of fat available for export. Again I would say that there are rumours in this country that the Treasury has refused permission for this purchase; that the Treasury is rather worried about the money which this country owes to Ireland at the present time, and is not prepared to increase it. Surely, when things cone down to a point like soap rationing, we should use every available source in every country, and not be influenced by an increase of a few odd thousands in the debt already incurred. I would particularly emphasise that, when we find that an agreement has been made with America,

under which we are importing luxury goods from that country.
I come now to the question of olive oil. I have been able to extract some interesting figures from the Trade and Navigation Accounts. This oil forms one of the chief components of good quality soap, and I find that in the first five months of 1945, we imported 1,550 tons of refined olive oil. This year we have imported one ton. Why have these sources dried up? Similarly, we have imported only 100 tons of unrefined olive oil. Not long ago, I was in Italy and Sicily, where there were unknown quantities of olive oil which the native producers would have been only too glad to sell to anyone. What have the Ministry of Food done to secure this oil, which is there for anyone to take away? With regard to whale oil, I understand that, broadly speaking, the British arid Japanese whaling fleets were practically exterminated during the war, and that we now depend, for the most part, on the Norwegian fleet. What steps have been taken by the Government to try to increase our resources; what steps have been taken—apart, from the one whaling expedition which received so much publicity but which, unfortunately, yielded so little result—to increase the potential resources of whale oil for ourselves?
The next question I would like to ask the Minister is about the N.A.A.F.I. Some Members of the House know from their own personal experience that in vast portions of Europe, under our control, cigarettes and soap are the staple currency. Wise and right steps have been taken by the Government to stop cigarettes being sent abroad and used as currency, and I would like to know what steps are being taken in regard to soap. Will the Minister give us the exact figures of the supplies to the N.A.A.F.I. of soap, shaving sticks, and so on, for the last available period? If the right hon. Gentleman goes into this matter I think he will discover some very illuminating figures to show that supplies are going abroad, and are being bought and used by our troops as currency. I would ask him to reassure the House on that point.
I understand from the form, No. G1535, which has been prepared by the Ministry, that all domestic users of soap are subjected to this cut, except children under five, and chimney sweeps. The Minister has chosen a very assorted


"bag" for his exemptions. Why has he chosen people in those categories? Why has he not included agricultural workers? At this season we depend enormously on the efforts of our agricultural workers to get in the harvest. There is no work more trying than that of the agricultural worker and no work which makes greater demands on the worker's supplies of soap. Our fishermen are receiving constant exhortations to bring in more fish. Why have they not been exempted? Theirs is a most "smelly" occupation, and if anybody needs to have his clothes washed more than a fisherman I should like to know who he is. With all due deference to chimney sweeps, theirs is a luxury trade. One can always get on without having a chimney swept, particularly in the summer. Why are chimney sweeps preferred to essential workers, such as agricultural workers and fishermen?
Under the heading "non-domestic users" come the textile industry,, some coal concerns, and some laundries, all of which are exempted. What portions of the textile industry are exempted? I imagine it is those in which soap has to be used in scouring wool yarn. Similarly, with regard to coalmines, is the exemption merely to apply to pithead baths? Is that a sop to the coal miners to try to get them to work harder? If so, why prefer them to agricultural workers and fishermen? Then why have some laundries, and not others, been exempted? Would the Minister tell us what he is trying to achieve by this distinction?
As far as one can judge—and, here again, the Minister is the only one in the House with accurate figures—the prewar output of soap was about 500,000 tons. Without this Order, it is now about 300,000 tons, and as a result this Order will become, by October, 260,000 tons. This is because the Order compels soap manufacturers to use not more than 15 per cent. of their fat allocation in the basic year during the next 13 weeks, and 14 per cent, afterwards. Does the Minister realise the hardship being caused to this section of our community? Does he realise that it is practically impossible for any soap manufacturer to keep his business open, particularly in view or the fact that the fats he is now receiving are very heterogeneous, and varied in nature? It

is true that the big manufacturers can use various types of fats, but the small men—and out of the 1,000 in the country, few can be called large—are finding it practically impossible to carry on. What hope has the Minister to offer that they will be given some help in this difficult transitional period?
A word or two about laundries. I do not know what your experience is, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but at the moment I cannot get a shirt washed under eight weeks. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wash it yourself."] I value my utility shirt more highly than to wash it myself What steps is the. Minister taking to try to help laundries? Why is it necessary for the public as a whole to be subjected to extreme discomfort?
I would ask the Minister to explain a few points about the export and import of soap. I understand that we are getting only 50 per cent. of our 1938 imports, and 75 per cent. of our 1945 imports. Why, in May, 1938, did we import 15,000 tons of soap, and in 1945 2,000 tons, whereas this year we are to import none? Why the difference? What sources have dried up? Why is it that South and Central America can get extra soap, and we can get nothing? In the first five months of this year we exported 198,000 cwts. of soap. Where has it gone, and why, particularly since, according to the Trade and Navigation Returns, 70,000 cwts. of that soap have gone to foreign countries? It is true that, a few months ago, exports were our primary consideration. I think that, in all parts of the House, we watched with growing pride the increase in our exports. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of the Government have told us that the export drive has far exceeded anticipations and far exceeded—if one may use the word—requirements for the moment—[HON, MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and that the trade deficit that we are expecting this year——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is now getting very far from the terms of the Motion before the House.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: With due deference to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am contending that, although at one stage it may have been necessary to sacrifice every one of these commodities in order


to earn foreign exchange, that no longer applies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If I may leave that subject, which seems to be rather dangerous ground, I will ask the Minister to give us the whole facts of the situation, as he did on the question of wheat, so that we may be in a position to judge what he has done, what he could have done, and what he proposes to do in the future. At the moment, I think that every hon. Member, if he is frank, will say that he does not know the answers to those questions. I hope that the Minister, in his bounty and grace, will provide the answers.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Murray: When I came to the House, I had no intention of speaking in this Debate, but I rise to challenge the insults that have been made against the miners by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre). That miners need extra soap is a well-known fact. If the hon. and gallant Member came from a mining area where they have to use very hard water, he would know that one of the greatest difficulties which the women have to contend with is to meet the requirements in soap. I do not think I need emphasise, even in the House, that the miner is just as clean as any other individual in the country.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre rose——

Mr. Murray: I do not intend to give way to the hon. and gallant Member. I think he had a fair innings. I rose simply to challenge his statements. [HON. MEMBERS: "Let him answer."] I do not ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to tell me what to do. All I wish to say to the hon. and gallant Member is that a beefsteak would be a better sop to the miners than the soft soap he has been talking about.

8.24 P.m.

Mr. Boothby: I have no objection to giving the miners an extra ration of soap, and I am sure that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) equally has no objection. I would give the miners an extra ration of everything in order to persuade them to get us some more coal. I wish to support very strongly the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend in favour of giving extra

rations to the fishermen. He bracketed them with agriculturists. I represent both fishermen and agriculturists, and I feel that if one has a claim above the other, the fishermen have a very strong claim, especially the herring fishermen, because although the herring is the most delicious article of food to eat, it has a rather pungent smell. The people who catch herrings, and also the girls who gut them, have to use a considerable amount of soap; otherwise, they would find very great difficulty in carrying on their ordinary functions. People might be tempted to shrink from them. Herring are very pungent fish. I beg the Minister of Food to bear in mind the claims of this industry when it is a matter of dishing out extra soap.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Goldfield (Sir J. Mellor), in moving the Motion, dealt very fully and faithfully with the question of groundnuts, and we shall await with interest the reply of the Minister. I press the right hon. Gentleman to give us some information about the whale oil position. I remember that in 1940, when things were pretty difficult, the question came up, when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, whether or not we would send out the whalers. Great risks were attendant upon their operations at that period, but Lord Woolton took the decision—a bold decision in the circumstances—to send them out, and this country had cause to be thankful that they were sent. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he is doing about the whale oil position, because it is extremely important, and if it is true, as some say, that we are very short of whalers at the present time, as a result of the war, what steps is he taking to get them, and what action does he intend to take this Autumn? I believe that the whale oil position is of absolutely vital importance. Another question that has been mentioned is olive oil. What action is the Minister taking to get olive oil from North Africa and Spain? Is he getting in touch with the Spanish Government and the Tunisian Government, in particular, to get what olive oil he can? It is generally agreed that the question of oil and fats is, perhaps after coal, the most serious problem which confronts the country at the present time.
I believe there is something to be done by way of extracting oil from herring. They are a very oily fish, and there are


very large numbers of them round our coasts. The right hon. Gentleman will never get anywhere, as far as this problem is concerned, if he starts comparing the price of the oil that can be extracted from herring with the price that would be paid for groundnuts if they were available, which they are not. That is not a very satisfactory comparison. I know, from my brief but vivid experience of the Civil Service, that it is the kind of comparison which the Departments are apt to make. They are apt to say, ''You cannot pay twice as much for herring oil as you would have done for groundnuts if groundnuts were available, because three years ago the price of groundnuts was so and so." All that would be valid if one could get groundnut oil instead of herring, but as one cannot, no price comparisons have any validity. I ask the Minister not to be deterred from exploring the possibility of extracting from herring oil which can be made into perfectly tasteless oil, most suitable for the manufacture of margarine.

Mr. James Hudson: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in Order for the hon. Member to refer to tasteless oil for the manufacture of margarine in a Debate on soap?

Mr. Boothby: Further to that point of Order——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point of Order was addressed to me. So far I have not deemed the hon. Member to be out of Order. I wait to see what relationship his remarks have to the subject of the Order.

Mr. Boothby: I was going to submit to you. Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with due respect, that in so far as we can supply, from herrings, oil for the manufacture of margarine, in exact proportion to that there will be more oil available for the manufacture of soap. Surely, that is in Order, and if the hon. Member does not want it to be applied to the manufacture of margarine, I am sure that herring soap would become a most popular article in this country.

Mr. Champion: Would it be non-smelly, as well as non-tasteless?

Mr. Boothby: In the process of manufacture all smell and taste are taken away.

I am only asking the House to believe that there is the possibility of extracting oil from herring in very considerable quantities if the right hon. Gentleman is not too niggardly on the subject of cost. He will not get the fishermen to go to sea and catch herring for this purpose at a loss, but if he wants oil—as he does—he should be prepared to pay a decent price, and anything that can help the situation at the present time should be tried. That is the only point I wish to make. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us this evening all the information that he possibly can with regard to every branch of what I might call the fats and oil trade. We have suffered far too much in this House in the past from having the facts concealed from us, not only on this subject but on many others, and the right hon. Gentleman has found, in the earliest days of his administration, that, on the whole, it pays to give the House of Commons and the country the facts.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I should like to say one or two words in support of the Motion which has been moved by my hon. Friends in relation to soap. I venture to do so because I manufacture a certain amount of soap myself of a kind which I think will appeal to hon. Members opposite, it being of the soft variety. I think that as the joys of Socialism unfold themselves one after another, the need for that commodity by hon. Members opposite will become apparent, and I am doing them an essential service in trying to prevent a cut in this great necessity at the present time. There has apparently been some confusion as to what soap really is, and if you will be tolerant with me for a moment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, perhaps I might explain what it is. Soap is largely made by saponifying oils or fats; the fats are usually tallow, and the oils are of a great variety. The saponifying takes place merely by introducing alkalines into the oils and fats, with the requisite amount of water.
I want to protest at the outset about the manner in which this reduction has been announced—a Press conference, broadcasts, and there is an end to it. We have the assumption on the part of the Government that we must accept these cuts as if they were a dictum or some


thing which cannot be moved in any way. I think that this is an entirely wrong attitude and when one realises that this is fortified by the statement made by the Lord President of the Council the other night that people should not be allowed to protest against cuts and be led astray into signing petitions, it gives rise to a very strange situation indeed. It is remarkable that the Government of this country, which is supposed to be a democratic and Socialist one, should protest when ordinary citizens say that these cuts are not sufficiently explained to them or may not be necessary, and I say tonight that we are doing an immense public service in bringing this to the notice of the country. Let me say that the cut which is now being announced is much more serious than it would appear on the surface, and will affect the housewife much more than she imagines at the present time.

Mr. Shurmer: Another scare.

Mr. W. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman opposite says that this is another scare. If he will bide his time, instead of yielding to his impetuous nature, I will tell him exactly why it is reasonable to assume that the present cuts in oil, fats and soap will prove more serious than most people visualise. Despite the fact that during the war manufacturers were supposed to manufacture at only 80 per cent. of their prewar rate of manufacture, it is undeniably true that a much larger amount was, in fact, manufactured. It is therefore true that we are now to have a bigger cut than is represented by the figures. A good deal of over-manufacture went on during the war, and for that reason housewives do not yet appreciate the severity of the proposed cut.

Mr. John Lewis: Does the hon. Member mean distribution or manufacture?

Mr. Shepherd: Manufacture. The hon. Member surely knows that the Government of the day saw fit to alter the existing arrangements of the ration, because so many people were going into shops and getting soap without coupons being cancelled. I know, as a matter of personal knowledge, that there was a good deal of over-manufacture. When the cut comes into operation, it will be a good deal more severe than housewives at

present appreciate. People have not yet got their stocks reduced to the point where conditions will become severe. During the war, we had to meet all the difficulties of transport, supplies and labour, but the truth is that the supply of oils and fats was in a very healthy condition indeed. I doubt whether one soap manufacturer in the country during the war had not, at any given moment, more oils and fats in his yam than he had in the days of peace. That situation has changed almost overnight, merely by the advent of another Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] That may seem a remarkable statement, but I would draw the attention of hon. Members opposite to the fact that what I have said is not related only to oils and fats for soap making, but to almost every raw material. If the Government do not get raw materials into the country very quickly, they will be faced with a serious unemployment problem. That may be an incidental result, but I think the statement can be shown to be perfectly true.
Why has the situation deteriorated from extreme healthiness to one in which we need every ton of oil and fat we can get? I say that it is due entirely to lack of foresight on the part of the present Government. It is impossible to bring the dogmas of the London School of Economics into business affairs without causing trouble. A man may be very excellent in the lecture room, but there is no guarantee that when his doctrines are translated into the hard realms of business they will be successful. What happened immediately the war was over? The present Government saw fit to export huge quantities of oils and fats from this country to the Continent. The stocks on hand were reduced by considerable exportations to other countries, without due regard to the possibility of replacing those stocks. The result is that the situation in the world was not improved, while we had released our stocks without making provision for their replacement. The policy of the Government in reducing stocks immediately after the war without taking due care to ensure their replacement was an act lacking in foresight, for which the people of this country now have to pay. Soap is an essential commodity. It is needed by some sections of the community more than by others. An hon. Member opposite mentioned the case of the miners, who use an


exceptional amount of soap. If they happen to live in a hard water area, the present ration will be hopelessly inadequate to their needs. That applies to housewives who have children. It will be very difficult for a housewife to meet her essential needs in present circumstances. It applies also to mechanics of all kinds who get their clothes and hands dirty. The very nature of their job makes it desirable that they should have more soap rather than less. Another class who will be adversely affected are doctors and nurses. They must, of necessity, use a considerable amount of soap, and the present cut will bear very seriously on them.
I make one suggestion to the Minister. It has been calculated that people in hard water districts suffer more than those in soft water districts. It is possible by the addition of a small amount of calcium phosphate to make any soap lather as freely in a hard water district as in a soft water district. If the material is available, as I think it is, the Minister should direct that it be used. If we can get a soap which has the advantage of being latherable freely in all kinds of waters, it will help people out of their difficulties. The American Army produced a general purposes soap, with this ingredient which lathered in salt water. There is no excuse for a country such as ours which has as possession most of the countries supplying oils, to be in the state we are in at the present time We ought to be in a more favourable position in respect of oil than any other country in the world. The reason why we have lost this, is lack of business acumen.
I ask the Minister what has happened to the supplies of cotton seed oils which I am told exist in Egypt. Have we bid for these in a reasonable manner? I know the policy of the Minister of Food is to keep prices down—I subscribe to that wholeheartedly, and I think it is most annoying to have to pay the kind of blackmail price which certain countries in South America are asking at the present time—but if we are faced with the alternatives of providing things for our people or of going without, we must pay the extra few pounds a ton to get the supplies. What has the Minister done about supplies of babussa seed oil. That is relatively new in its way, but it is one of the most useful soap making oils. The

supply is very prolific but the difficulty of gathering it is considerable. I am told that the Americans are buying this on a large scale. Why have not British buyers entered the market and got supplies of this oil? It is important that we should look into that question. The same applies to linseed oil. It is true that it is not used very much in the manufacture of hard soaps, but it would save other oils which could be used for soap making. We are slipping behind. We wanted to force the South American prices down, but instead of that, we have lost supplies. No Government can afford to do these things. Our people are suffering in consequence.
Then what has happened to the supply of tallow? During the war some big producers like Australia have started their own soap production and are using more tallow themselves, but I believe that we could get tallow from Australia if we pressed them. They would be willing to let us have tallow in larger quantities than at the present time.
Further, about groundnut oil, surely this is an example of lack of foresight causing a shortage? We are told that rice was available and could have been bought for India if the Government had been alive to the situation some time ago, and now because India has not been provided with the necessary amount of rice, they are keeping groundnut oil and we have to go short of soap. It is important for even a Socialist Government to be alive in these matters, and to realise that you cannot discard entirely the business men and the industrialists. The business man, the industrialist, has been abused by hon. Members opposite from time immemorial, but the longer they are in office, the more they will realise that the qualities he displays are necessary for the conduct of a nation and, without them, this country will get into a very bad state indeed.
With regard to whale oil, this is a commodity very largely used in soap-making and it is extraordinarily useful to the British soap maker. I understand that the fleet went out and did very badly. Well, I cannot blame that on to the Socialist Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—but I must say that I cannot understand why the season should have been so bad. For four, five or six years, these whales have been left alone. I do


not know what are the ideal and congenial conditions under which whales breed, but I should have thought that the absence of energetic gentlemen with harpoons would at any rate have assisted their endeavours. But what do we find? That the fleet goes out and comes back with very little indeed. I would like an explanation from the Minister on that point.
Let me turn for a moment to the question of soapless detergents, as we call them, on which the Minister has held out some promise to the people. To my mind he has held out a good deal of false promise because I do not think his soap substitutes will do as much as he has led people to believe they will do.

Mrs. Nichol: Soap manufacturer.

Mr. Shepherd: I am as interested in this as the soap manufacturers and I have for some time taken more interest than the hon. Lady. I have sold them to the public at less than cost, in order to popularise them, and I am very keenly interested in seeing them establish themselves on the market. Even so, it is essential to point out that these substitutes will not fulfil all the functions of ordinary soap and that they have very serious drawbacks which it would be unwise for me to detail. They are mainly of a liquid character and cannot be transformed into the form of soap in the ordinary way. They are apt to irritate the skin. They are suitable only for certain kinds of use, such as washing up, and, in a minor way, for a certain amount of clothes washing. But, and this is the important thing to remember, the supply of these soapless detergents is drying up as a result of the policy of this Government. I had a letter the other day from a firm which makes 95 per cent. of the basic material in this country from which these soap-less detergents are produced. They said, amongst other things, that pressure by the Government on them to export this material made it impossible for them to supply us with any more this year.
That is what is happening with the material for soapless detergents. The Government are saying, "We will make up to you the difference between the present soap ration with these soapless detergents," while the Board of Trade is forcing the material out of the country, and the people of this country will be

very fortunate indeed if they get much of a supply of that commodity at the present time. I consider that this problem of soap is another example of mishandling by the present Government. The situation is admittedly difficult. The supplies of oils and fats are not as brisk as we would like them to be, but, by foresight, we could have avoided this fresh cut. This is another example of what happens to the country when Socialism is in office.

8.50 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): A very large number of points made by hon. Members deserve some immediate reply. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), who moved this Motion, complained of the delay there had been in giving figures of exports of soap and for that delay I entirely plead guilty. I am afraid I was the bottleneck in replying to his written Question. I understand that the figures of our exports during the past year were running at the rate of 8,500 tons a year, which is about 3½ per cent, of the total soap production. All of that, except 500 tons, was exports for which we had obtained the raw material from the Combined Food Board on an increased scale. We had been given an increased allocation of the raw materials, on condition that we made those exports. So that the true commercial export was rather of a token character, well under 1,000 tons. In any case, with the growing difficulties of the situation, those exports have now been stopped.
The hon. Member's next point was on the question of imports of soap, or the raw materials of soap, fats, from the United States. He suggested that I had been stopped by a wicked Chancellor of the Exchequer from buying these things from the United States, because the Chancellor grudged me the dollars. I can assure the hon. Member rightaway that there is not a word of truth in that. If we could obtain these fats, tallow, or any other type of raw materials, in the United States, I should not have the least difficulty in obtaining the necessary dollars We have, of course, endeavoured to do so, but there are none for sale at the moment. The hon. Member's point about West Africa brings up the whole question of groundnuts, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. This is, perhaps, the most important single


factor—there are a large number of factors, but this is the most important single factor—in the whole position, and I will try to deal with points raised by several hon. Members in that connection. It is perfectly true that the Supply of groundnuts from West Africa has been, and promises to be, relatively good.
But, that in itself is nothing like enough to restore the situation. That is why we are doing a number of things, exploring the possibilities of a greatly increased supply of groundnuts in East Africa, and of further increasing the supply from West Africa. It would be quite wrong to think that because missions are doing that work there at the moment, nothing had been done before, A good deal has been done, and indeed, West Africa has borne fruit in a good supply from that area this year. But that does not mean that we cannot make it still better, and we intend to do so. As the hon Member rightly said, that depends a good deal on getting consumer goods into the hands of native producers in that area. That links up with another point made by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) who seconded the Motion, that after all we need not force our exports now quite so hard as we were doing, that nor exports were going so well—I am grateful for the tribute he paid us in that respect, even if it was involuntary—that now we could well let up in that field.—[interruption.] Perhaps he did not go quite as far as that, but certainly that was the implication, that we need not put tremendous pressure behind the export drive as undoubtedly has been put behind it up to now. I do not think that that is the case at all. I know I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when I say, with regard to the wonderful progress which has been made in the rise of export, as a reason for keeping up that drive——

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Has the right hon. Gentleman also converted the Minister of Health, who at the last Election called exports a Tory will o' the wisp?

Mr. Strachey: I have not the words of the Minister of Health with me, but I can well believe that if a Tory Government had been in power exports would indeed have been a will o' the wisp. But be that as it may, the level of our exports is in

timately connected with the level of the supplies we can get of these vital materials such as groundnuts. As the hon Member for Sutton Coldfield well pointed out, it is not only that we need exports to balance our payments, we need them precisely in order to produce the supplies, in order to encourage the native producers, who will not produce for nothing, to part with their primary products.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I would like to make clear what I said, which was, that in view of our exports, there was perhaps not so much need now to inflict this terrific hardship on our people of a cut in the soap ration. The right hon. Gentleman is going very far if he says that the export of soap to West Africa will increase the imports of groundnuts.

Mr. Strachey: There never has been an export of soap to West Africa; there never will, I think, be an export of soap to West Africa. All exports to anywhere have been stopped, so perhaps that point has now been covered. Perhaps it has been stopped since the Trade and Navigation Accounts were issued.
Returning to the vital question of groundnuts, the real issue is the temporary—I trust temporary—total cessation of supplies from India. The Indian Government—I am not for one moment criticising them in this—in view of their food situation, have totally prohibited the export of groundnuts from India. That again, more than any other single factor, is at the root of our troubles in this matter. That point links with a most remarkable statement made by the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd). He told us that we ought to be on velvet so far as these fats were concerned, because did we not possess most of the countries of the world which exported those products, and he actually instanced Egypt, and, I think, India.

Mr. W. Shepherd: I said that we ought to have less currency difficulties attached to obtaining supplies of oils because of our association with the people who produce them. I did not instance Egypt in this connection. I invite the Minister to deny the fact that British possessions and the British Empire are the major producers of oil in this connection.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, but I much prefer the formulation which the hon. Member


has now given of his views to the one he first gave. He used the word "possessed" very clearly. Whatever our wishes on this subject—they might be different—we do not possess India or Egypt in the sense that we have any right or any ability to force the Governments of those countries to export fats and oils to us, if they do not wish to do so. I can, and do, hope most strongly that the Indian Govern-merit will see their way, by an improvement in the Indian food position, to resume the export of groundnuts to this country. It is of great importance to us and, of course, it would be of great benefit to India to resume that export which is very profitable to them. That can be solved only by an improvement in the food situation in India, as was recognised by another hon. Member who went on to say that somehow or other we ought not to cut off the supplies of rice to India. Was it the Socialist Government of Britain which cut off supplies of rice to India? Who occupied Burma? Was it the wicked Socialist Government?

Mr. W. Shepherd: It could not have been much more devastating.

Mr. Strachey: The condition of this country is not precisely the condition of Burma under Japanese occupation. I can assure the hon. Member of that. The lack of rice in India is primarily because of the cutting off of Burma rice by the Japanese occupation and its consequences. It is that, together with the hope of increasing rice production in Siam, and its export, which gives hope of a better food situation in India, which, in turn, will release groundnut supplies to us. That is an allustration of how all these things are bound together. They can be tackled—I come back to the point about exports—very largely by means of our exports, because Siamese rice depends very largely on getting the flow of consumer goods into Siam. I put it to the House that it is precisely because under the very strong leadership of the President of the Board of Trade we have forced our exports with perhaps what many hon. Members feel is a very hard policy. Certainly it is a stern one. We have denied ourselves for the sake of our exports. They are the keys not only in general, but in specific cases to the increase of our exports of these vital commodities. I would like to come to the question of the Argentine. That is a very important point.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Before the Minister leaves the question of groundnuts, would he give us the figures for imports from West Africa?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot give those figures offhand—I have not got them with me—nor can I pledge myself to give them later. On the question of figures, I would say that because I gave one particular wheat figure last week, I am not going to be pressed—successfully, at any rate—to give stock figures on all occasions for all commodities.

Mr. W. Shepherd: What is against it?

Mr. Strachey: Precisely the argument which has been put forward by hon. Members opposite. It would be contrary to the practice of the so called, and well called, practical business men who buy these commodities in the world. It is precisely the advice of these business men, some of the very ablest of whom happen to be officers in my Ministry at the moment, which denies me, rightly in my opinion, the freedom to give hon. Members what they wish in this case.

Mr. Osborne: Do these practical business men form the policy of the Ministry?

Mr. Strachey: The policy of the Ministry is formed by the Government. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. The practical buying of these commodities is done by extremely eminent business men who at the moment are officers of the Ministry of Food. They do not decide the general policy of the Government. it is a most improper suggestion to say that civil servants should do that. They do the job of which they have great and lifelong experience and they do it extremely well.
I would like to come to the question of the Argentine, which is of great importance. There have been various suggestions that we are missing the bus in the case of the Argentine and that we are being out-bought by rival buyers mainly in the matter of linseed. That is the essential fact which is concerned. That particular charge, I can assure the House, is completely false. There is no substance whatever in the charge that other countries are getting, any appreciable quantities of linseed which we are failing to get, but, when I have said that, do not let me suggest that the position is wholly


satisfactory. It is not. The truth of the matter is that nobody at the moment is getting any adequate supplies of the Argentine linseed. One hon. Member who spoke regarded this, again, as one of the sins of the Labour Government in this country. I really cannot be made responsible for the Argentine Government. It is a Government of a very different political complexion from this one, and its actions and its policy are not matters which I can control. The Argentine is a free, sell-governing community, self-governing in that sense, at any rate, and it is not for me to question their actions. No one has suceeded, so far, in getting considerable quantities of linseed out of the Argentine. The question of the release of these linseed supplies, which are undoubtedly there in considerable quantities and will have to be released sooner or later, is one of very great moment, and I can assure the House that my Ministry is extremely active in this matter.

Mr. Boothby: What is the purpose of the Argentine Government in holding them up?

Mr. Strachey: If I had to guess at the purpose of a seller in holding up a commodity, I do not think I should find it very difficult.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is it because the Chancellor is not finding the money?

Mr. Strachey: No, it is not.

Mr. W. Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman has said that we are doing as well as anybody else. Would not the House be reassured if we were given the figures?

Mr. Strachey: No. If I should give these figures, it would be very definitely against the national interest. The hon. Member spoke to us as a business man and pleaded that time after time, and he knows far better than I do that transactions in this sort of situation are the worst in which to give such figures. I come now to another point which various hon. Members made on the question of soap substitutes. The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) tells us, speaking as a producer of soap and soap substitutes, that he does not like them and that they are unsuitable for certain purposes., There are two things to say

about that. It is perfectly true, and nobody suggests that one can make a toilet soap out of them, but, after all, if we have a satisfactory quantity and quality of these soap substitutes, they can do certain jobs, such as the washing-up of crockery. We use them in our house, as a matter of fact, and I washed-up with them myself as recently as last weekend.

Mr. W. Shepherd: What was the brand?

Mr. Strachey: I do not know its name. I consider that they are of very considerable importance and well worth development in view of the present situation. Nor, we must remember, is the question of these substitutes confined directly to that of soap. It is claimed by business men—and I never challenge business men's claims—that an effective substitute has been produced from a mineral oil base, not only for soaps, but for paints. If this claim can be successfully maintained, then, indirectly, the effect on easing our position, not only in the field of paint, but in the field of soap—and there may be others in the field of edible fats—will be very great indeed.

Mr. W. Shepherd: Would be.

Mr. Strachey: I do not know whether the hon. Member is challenging the statements and claims of his fellow businessmen in this field or not, but I am certainly informed by very eminent scientific advisers that technical difficulties in this field are by no means insuperable. Therefore, I continue to attach very considerable importance to this question of soap substitutes. The Ministry of Food, and other Ministries in consultation, are actively engaged in encouraging this supplementary, but very important source. The hon. Member for Bucklow also told us that the basic raw material of these substitutes was in short supply because we were forcing exports. He took up the export point again. The basic raw materials, so far as I know, of all these substitutes are mineral oils, and it is very difficult to believe that they are in short supply.

Mr. W. Shepherd: What I said was that, so far as production of these soap-less detergents from mineral oil was concerned, they were largely in the hands of one large firm. [An HON. MEMBER:


"Multiply the source of supply."] The source of supply cannot be multiplied very easily because the plant is a considerable one. The manufacturers circularised my firm only two weeks ago saying that, owing to the necessity of exporting so much material, they would have to restrict supplies to us and to every other firm in the country. Therefore, I said that the Minister was holding out false hopes to the consumer while the stuff was going overseas.

Mr. Strachey: Is the hon. Member referring to mineral oil?

Mr. Shepherd: No, to the detergents made from mineral oil.

Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member is referring to the semi-finished product which is then made into the soap substitute. That is the point I am very willing to examine, and if it is substantiated that there is a limiting factor which, frankly, is very contrary to the information in my possession, I think that a very strong case would be made out for using a limited supply of that semi-finished product for increasing the manufacture of soap substitutes in this country.
A large number of other points have been made. We were told that Eire would be a great supplier of meat and, therefore, of fats. I am afraid that that is a comparatively small factor. Let me again say that there is no Treasury difficulty in that direction, at least. The Chancellor is not limiting my purchases in Eire, and we shall purchase all the available supplies. The purchase price of olive oil is, at the moment, £400 a ton, which is a very formidable price to pay for a raw material for the manufacture of soap. Nevertheless, although mainly for other purposes, we are purchasing every ton of olive oil we can get.
The hon. Member for Bucklow was, I think, astonished at his own moderation when he did not blame the Labour Government for the disappointing results of the whaling season. Other speakers, however, were very critical indeed, because they said that, as far as they knew, there had only been one whaling expedition and that had had disappointing results. The reason why there has been only one whaling expedition is because there has been only one whaling season. I was asked a more serious point—why

the results of that whaling expedition were poor? The results were, of course, a very considerable addition to our supplies, but they were, I agree, comparatively poor. I am informed that the weather in the Antarctic was extremely bad.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us the figure?

Mr. Strachey: No, I see no reason to do so. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who also mentioned this question, spoke his usual eloquent words on behalf of the herring. He will be pleased to hear that we propose this year to purchase and use a very considerable quantity of herring oil. This will be imported herring oil, because none is available here. I certainly am prepared, and, indeed, I have already begun, to go into the possibility of producing herring oil from British fished herring for supplementing our fats purchases. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) made an interesting point that there was an illicit export of soap through the agency of N.A.A.F.I., and that it was being used in the black market. That is a possibility which I will certainly examine, it may be well worth looking into.

Sir J. Mellor: Would the right hon. Gentleman deal with my inquiry about the offer from Australia of 5,000 tons of soap? I did not commit myself to its accuracy, but I asked the question.

Mr. Strachey: I would prefer to give the hon. Gentleman the exact facts and figures later, but I understand that there was such an offer and it was refused. This is going back some time, I think. I simply do not know why it was refused. It seems, on the face of it, a curious decision, because if anyone offered me any soap at a price which was not altogether prohibitive, certainly such an offer would not be refused. I understand that at the moment a purchase in New Zealand is being made.
A number of points were made with regard to the incidence of the cut in the soap ration which has come into force, and, very naturally, different hon. Members pressed the claims of different industries and classes in the community, such as agricultural workers, fishery


workers and the like. I must admit that, like other hon. Members on this side of the House, I was astonished that the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch should think that these claims should have precedence over, or even parity with, the claims of the coal-miner, because it seems to me to stand to reason that the claims of the coalminer for exemption from a cut in the soap ration must stand higher than those of workers in any other industry in the country, and I make no apology whatever for having singled out the coalminer in that respect. The hon. Member for Bucklow made one further suggestion which interested me—that something could be added to the soap to make it more effective and capable of being used more economically in hard water districts. I would be very grateful if he would send me particulars, because it sounds like a constructive suggestion.
I have no more to say, except that this cut is unquestionably most unpleasant for all of us. But it is an incredibly misleading charge to suggest that the Government are failing to scour the world for supplies of fats of all kinds. It is on a par with a charge which was made by the hon. Member for Bucklow, who is very free with his charges, and who stated categorically that in the early months this Government had exported great quantities of the then high stocks of fats which we had in this country, which had been carefully preserved by preceding Governments, and which were then squandered by this Government. Frankly, I do not believe a word of it. On looking into the matter, I find that very limited quantities of fats were exported to countries in Europe in very great need, and that already every single ton of those fats has been repaid. They were exported and have been repaid.

Mr. W. Shepherd: Would the right hon. Gentleman give the figures which indicate the small quantity?

Mr. Strachey: Whether the hon. Member believes me or whether the quantities were small or large is totally irrelevant, because every ton has been repaid. In this case the quantity has no bearing whatever on the point. Really, these charges which he makes, and which no doubt he hopes to get repeated outside

this House, which have no relevance to the facts whatever, do not, I think, do credit to the responsibility of our deliberations here. We shall continue to scour the world for fats for the raw materials of soap, and for edible fats still more. We find a position today in which many countries, of course, are incomparably worse off for soap and edible fats than we are. We had to make this sacrifice in our soap ration because, of the two evils, it was a lesser evil than making a cut in the edible fat ration. It will not be an easy problem; it will not be quickly solved. By the measures for increasing the supply, which I have indicated this evening, I do believe that slowly, but surely, we shall again secure an adequate supply, and again be able to give our people what they need, I readily admit—a better supply of fats for edible purposes and a better ration of soap.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Perhaps hon. Members opposite feel, as hon. Members on this side of the House certainly feel, that the right hon. Gentleman has made a singularly less convincing speech today than he made in a previous -Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly he was not received tonight with the ovation which he received when he sat down the other day. He has, of course, failed singularly to produce a single argument beyond those given on previous occasions by his predecessor—a predecessor, be it noted, who denied that a cut in the soap ration would be necessary. I cannot understand this reluctance on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to give figures. It appears to be an obsession with him. If the House will forgive me, I will give one or two examples to show the really fantastic position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman. We asked him if he would give the figures of whale oil imported into this country as a result of the current whaling season. What possible objection can there be to disclosing to this House the result of the whaling fleet's trip to the Antarctic, British and Norwegian? His predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherhithe (Sir B. Smith), gave considerable details as to what was the expectation of that trip. He told us in this House on 4th April, in answer to a speech by myself, that the whaling position was not good. He said:
We estimate that by extending the period we may get 50 per cent. of what we had in pre


war days.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1946; Vol. 421, C. 1503.]
He had said in an earlier speech, to which I referred, in that same Debate, that he had given us the figures. He said that the whaling fleet had been less successful, and that instead of getting 135,000 tons we should only get 100,000 tons, that is a drop of 35,000 tons. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherhithe could give the specific figures, and if there was nothing against the national interest in his doing so on 4th April, what has intervened since 4th April to make the right hon. Gentleman so reluctant to give the figures today? There is nothing at all, and to show the completely farcical—I use the word advisedly—the completely farcical nature of the right hon. Gentleman's argument, I will turn to his own Trade and Navigation Returns for May, 1946, in which he gives the imports of whale oil, into this country both from the British fleet and from the foreign fleets. [HON. MEMBERS: "Then what are you worrying about?"] But we asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would give the figures to the House and he said "No," it was against the national interest to give them. In a previous Debate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherhithe gave detailed figures of the programme of imports of groundnuts from India. He told us that he had originally been promised by India 600,000 tons, and that that figure had been cut down to some 300,000 tons, and therefore he would be in difficulties, The right hon. Gentleman now says that the Indian Government have prohibited the export of groundnuts from India. What possible objection is there to telling us, in the meantime, how many actual tons of groundnuts arrived in this country from India before the embargo? Was it the 300,000 tons that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherhithe expected, or was it some bigger or smaller figure?
Now we turn to the question of imports from West Africa. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherhithe, in the same speech on 4th April, 1946, said:
That is the position so far as India is concerned. In West Africa there is a fairly good crop, and we are doing our best to lift it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th April, 1946; Vol. 421, c. 1503.]
What conceivable objection is there to the right hon. Gentleman, or the Minister of

Food, telling this House whether that prognostication has turned out right, and what is the size of the crop that he has lifted? Does he seriously say that the disclosure of those figures is against the national interest? I will give him the chance to say so now.

Mr. Strachey: I am perfectly willing to intervene. The right hon. Gentleman appears to be going through our main sources of supply of fats and oils one by one and seriatim. If he adds those figures together, the total will be our total supply of fats and oils, precisely the figure which, as I stated in my speech, was the one which all the practical business men—by whom hon. Gentleman opposite set such store—advised us it would be contrary to the national interest to give.

r. Hudson: But I am able to give the right hon. Gentleman the figures from his own publication. These are the figures which are so secret and must not be known published in May, 1946, in the Trade and Navigation Returns. If hon. Members will look under imports, first Section, pages 59 and 60, they will find the following information:
Groundnuts undecorticated and decorticated'
If hon. Members will follow along the line they will find that in the first five months of this year the imports of decorticated groundnuts from British West Africa amounted to 108,582 tons. This was in a year when the crop was supposed to be a rather good one, whereas last year, under the Coalition Government, we managed to get in the same period 151,000 tons from British West Africa. If all this can be put down here in the Trade and Navigation Returns, why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give it openly to this House? I go further. We get decorticated groundnuts from British India. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Indian Government had at some time stopped the export. From British India, in the first five months of this year, we got 125.000 tons of decorticated groundnuts. We got 12,000 tons from Ceylon.
Then the right hon. Gentleman talked about the difficulty of getting linseed, and the absence of linseed oil; but if he will look at a White Paper issued by his predecessor the other day, Cmd. 6785, he will find it there stated, on page 13, paragraph 39:


In the Argentine increased acreages have been sown to oil seed crops, particularly sunflower seed; and despite domestic utilisation, including, in the war years, the burning of oil for fuel, the current exports of exportable supplies are over 100,000 tons of oil equivalent above the prewar average.
If his predecessor could say that in April, 1946, I really do not see why this House should not be given similar information today, whether or not that estimate was made. If the House will look at this White Paper—and I am sure that hon. Members opposite must think this information is accurate, because they were at pains to quote other passages against me, when it suited their purpose, in the Debate the other day—hon. Members will find estimates made of what the likely position was to be. This was published, do not forget, immediately after the statement issued from to, Downing Street, denying the suggestion by the Ministry of Food that a cut in cooking fats and soap was likely to take place or was necessary. This was issued in order to prove to the House and to the world that these cuts were not necessary. In these four paragraphs of that White Paper very detailed estimates are given of what the situation was to be. There is nothing about not giving the actual figures. There were estimates made, for instance, of 250,000 or 300,000 tons of oil from the East Indies. When the Government come along and say, "We have changed our minds, and we are now doing something in July that we said was not necessary in April," the House and the country, surely, are entitled to know what has actually occurred, in figures, to show that those figures were wrong. The right hon. Gentleman has not given a single figure to bear out the necessity, or alleged necessity, for this cut.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the question of substitutes for oil, and there again the right hon. Gentleman gave a wholly insufficient account of what is actually taking place. I am informed that a perfectly good substitute, a soapless detergent, was invented in Germany, and produced in Germany, during the war, and a similar compound or, perhaps, a similar formula, was discovered by one of the leading oil firms in this country. I am informed—and if the right hon. Gentleman questions this, he has only himself to blame for not giving accurate figures—that some

German experts have been brought over here, but up till now the Ministry of Food—I am specifically informed on this—have been limiting the production of this alternative. Moreover, I am credibly informed that two of the factories making this particular successful soap substitute were in the Russian occupied zone of Germany. This impending cut or shortage of fats must have been known for months, because the Ministry of Food put out their famous statement on 22nd March, and I should like to ask have the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues done anything at all to try to get permission to import that machinery from the Russian zone to this country. [Laughter.] Members opposite laugh, but it has not prevented them allowing U.N.R.R A to ship 7,000 tons of linseed oil from South American ports for Russian-occupied countries.

Mr. Strachey: Does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that we control both the Argentine and Russian Governments?

Mr. Hudson: It happens that we are subscribing something in the order of£55 million sterling in British money to U.N.R.R.A., and Russia is making no contribution of money at all. What we are apparently doing is using some of that money to provide oil for Russia. I suggest that instead of laughing, the Government should take some steps to get the necessary factory machinery sent over here to make this substitute.
The other point which the right hon. Gentleman failed entirely to deal with, is the question of utilisation within this country of the supplies of oil which we have. The same oil can be used alternatively for making paint, for making soap, and, when hydrogenised, for making margarine. It is clear that some internal decision has been taken by the Government, either by the Ministry of Supply or the Ministry of Food, or possibly the Board of Trade, about the relative use of such supplies as we have of linseed for these different purposes. I suggest that we are entitled to know the total amount of linseed that has been used during the last three months for each of these three different purposes. It is clear that if you have only a limited amount of oil, you have to allocate it, but the important thing is that, on allocation depends whether you are going to get more


soap or more paint. It must be clear that something has happened recently inside the Department since the right hon. Gentleman took office, which has resulted in a smaller allocation of linseed oil for soap and a large allocation for paint. Clearly something must have happened of that nature since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherhithe was Minister of Food and said that a reduced ration of soap would not be necessary.
Therefore, I venture to suggest that it would be to the advantage of the country, and it would certainly be to the advantage of the Government, and it would certainly relieve the housewife's mind, if this veil of secrecy was raised. The right hon. Gentleman found that he had to raise it the other clay, in the case of bread. It need never have existed in the case of bread. There are numerous other similar occasions when secrecy has prevailed today, but I am quite sure that it would be to everyone's advantage if this veil of secrecy were raised. I have given a number of cases of stocks already. I do not want to weary the House by reading out a lot more——

Mr. Strachey: I think that the right hon. Gentleman said that he had given a number of figures on stocks——

Mr. Hudson: On imports.

Mr. Strachey: Imports—that is a very different matter.

Mr. Hudson: I asked for imports, and I see no reason at all why they should not be given, or why stocks should not be given. An hon. Member said that the housewife is not interested. Believe me she is vitally interested. My information is for example——

Mr. Shurmer: This is the first time you have been interested in housewives.

Mr. Hudson: My information—I give it purely as an illustration—is that, at the present moment, there are ample stocks of tea in this country—sufficient to make tea-rationing unnecessary. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman disclose this? The housewife would be very interested——

Mr. Pritt: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Can tea stocks, and the question of whether housewives are interested in tea stocks, be relevant to this Debate?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear what the hon. and learned Member said.

Mr. Pritt: I asked if tea stocks, and the housewives' interest in tea stocks, could be relevant to a Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) (Soap) Order.

Mr. Speaker: I understood the hon. and learned Member was referring to cheese. Cheese does not seem to have much to do with soap, but some cheese is rather like soap.

Mr. Hudson: I can assure the House, and hon. Members opposite, that the housewife is going to take a great interest in these matters and, so far as any information given in this Debate tonight is concerned, the housewife will agree with us on these benches that no case has been made out for the reduction of the soap ration——

Mr. Bowles: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any interest at all in soap, and, if so, will he disclose his interest?

Hen. Members: Answer.

Mr. Hudson: I should have thought that even the hon. Gentleman would have know me long enough to know that, if I had any such interest, I should have dis. closed it at once.

Mr. Alpass: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the same question which he has been addressing to the other side of the House—to disclose his source of information as to the stocks of tea and other things in this country?

Mr. Hudson: That would be out of Order.

9.45 P.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I must protest against the attitude which the Minister of Food adopted. In his agreeable and lucidly expressed observations while he stood at the Box he dealt in a convincing manner with certain individual points, but he failed in his attempt to give the House any reasoned case for his decision to make a further cut in the soap ration. The House is, after all, responsible to its constituents for the hardship that this cut will involve, and before the House can come to a proper decision- as to whether this cut is or is not necessary it must be in possession of the necessary information.


The right hon. Gentleman knows that the House has no opportunity whatever of forming a proper view upon that vital question, unless the House is simply to accept the attitude that what the right hon. Gentleman says is law, and cannot be questioned.
If the House is to discharge its responsibility to its constituents there are two vital matters to which it must have an answer. First it must know the figures upon which the right hon. Gentleman's decision is based. If the right hon. Gentleman will not or cannot give the House those figures he is denying to the House the opportunity to exercise its own independent judgment upon the matter, and he forces hon. Members to the conclusion that the facts upon which he acted were not sufficient to justify his decision. If I am wrong, the Minister can dissipate that impression in a moment by getting up and giving the figures, but in the absence of that information—and in the absence of the Minister himself, though I do not 'know that that matters very much—how are hon. Members, and particularly hon. Members opposite whose responsibility in this matter is greater, to justify themselves to their constituents as having come to a proper decision in this matter.
There is one other matter on which the House does require information if it is to form a proper judgment. A further cut has been imposed upon the British people. Are we not entitled to set that cut in the general picture of the world situation? Are we not entitled to know the comparable position in other countries? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am much obliged to the hon. Member. The hon. Member no doubt wishes to form his decision without a full knowledge of the facts. I do not share that attitude, and I do not think our constituents outside share such an attitude. Surely, before a proper view can be formed as to whether a right sacrifice was asked for from the British people—for it is a sacrifice—we should know what rationing of soap there has been in other comparable countries, and in particular in the other victorious nations of the world? The right hon. Gentleman has given us nothing. He has merely given his decision on the matter and has given us no information on how Ire arrived at the decision, unless, of course, we are merely to be treated as a

vehicle for automatically registering the decisions of the right hon. Gentleman.
There are two specific matters arising from the Minister's speech on which I should be glad to join issue with him. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that the export of soap has stopped. It is within the knowledge of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House that as recently as last week, a detailed statement appeared in the Press to the effect that an export licence for over£100,000 worth of soap had been granted to a Manchester firm. That statement, if it is true, is in conflict with the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman gave to the House a few minutes ago. The statement is clear and precise. Surely the House is entitled to know whether exports of soap have been stopped, or whether, at the time the right hon. Gentleman gave that assurance, his colleague at the Board of Trade was taking a wholly different attitude.
There is one other matter. In one of his eloquently phrased and rhetorical passages the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he had scoured the world for alternative sources of supply. May I tell the House of one corner that he did not scour? As long ago as last November a report was sent to his Ministry by the Economic Section of the British Mission in Rumania, with respect to a scientist who had a process for the artificial manufacture of basic oils for soap making. That was last November, and all the responsible Department, then presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherhithe (Sir B. Smith), did was to indicate to the responsible people who put forward this request that the Ministry of Food was not interested—those were the words—in this process. Had the Department taken a more lively interest in the matter, and adopted a little more forethought, that process could have been in operation in this country today, and it is more than possible that those limitations, would not have been necessary. Since those papers were sent to the Ministry in November, they have been shuffled and reshuffled about Whitehall, until a week ago—the result, no doubt, of intervention by certain Members of the House—permission was given for this scientist to be brought to this country. The fact that permission was given deals with any suggestion that this was not a


process worth trying. Apparently, it is thought worth trying now.
That is a brilliant revelation of the methods, or lack of methods, and the foresight, or lack of foresight, which has been adopted in regard to this matter. Our people have, on the one side, that picture, and, on the other, the obstinate and determined refusal of the right hon. Gentleman to give to the House of Commons the facts upon which, alone, a balanced judgment on this matter can be formed. You have, in the light of that, a decision which will cause increased difficulties in the lives of our much tried people, particularly for the housewife. It will throw an extra strain on our already overburdened laundries. I think it the inevitable and inescapable duly of any Member of the House, faced with those facts, which are beyond challenge and dispute, to register, in the only constitutional way possible, his refusal to be connected with such muddle, meddle and inefficiency.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Carson: I am sorry that the Minister of Food has left, because I wish to say that in this House, where so many hon. Members have got rather hot under the collar, there are two hon. Members who have remained calm. One is the Minister of Food, who exercises self-control to keep him calm, and the other is the Leader of the House, who remains calm because he does not care whether soap is rationed or not. I think that far too much heat has been generated in this discussion. One of my hon. Friends spoke of soap substitutes. I ask the Minister, quite seriously and in a nonpolitical manner, whether he has not heard of a substitute called "Mamsel," which we have used in our house for several months. This is a substitute for soapflakes, and it is of the greatest use. I was very sorry to hear that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) cannot get his shirts washed in under eight weeks. If he will come to me after this Debate, I will tell him where he can get them washed in a fortnight.
I come now to the main point I wish to make, and in doing so, I speak not from the world point of view, but from the point of view of the consumers in this

country, and particularly the railway workers. There is in Ramsgate a railway shed, and in this shed there are workers in various categories. They clean the engines, they repair the engines—[Interruption]—I ask hon. Members opposite to listen; they are not famed for listening to things they do not want to hear. The Ramsgate depot of the Southern Railway is a large depot. It has a fitting staff, and it has a staff of dirty workers. [Interruption.] That is the official term. They are workers who get very dirty. None of these workers in any category receives any extra soap. They have to rely upon the ordinary soap ration. I went down there the other day, quite unexpectedly—[Interruption]—this is no laughing matter—and I found that the men were very dirty indeed. Although they receive no extra soap, they are expected to remain clean, and after their work to look like ordinary citizens. I impress upon the Minister of Food, first, that he should consider very seriously giving these men extra soap, and secondly, most certainly that they should not receive the cut in soap that is contemplated at the present time. They need the soap very badly. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has put forward a plea in favour of the fishermen of this country. I think the railway workers in this particular shed need it much more badly than the fishermen. I would also point out to the Minister that there is a grave discrepancy here in that the railway workers in certain other sheds—that at Ashford, for example—receive the extra soap ration simply because they are covered by the Factory Act. The workers at Ramsgate are not covered by that Act and, therefore, do not receive the extra soap although they do exactly the same work. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider being rather more liberal with the extra ration, especially in view of this very hard type of work.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 104.

Division No. 241.]
AYES.
[3.33 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)
Moody, A. S.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Morley, R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Ewart, R.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Allighan, Garry
Fairhurst, F.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Farthing, W. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Attewell, H. C.
Foot, M. M.
Mort, D. L.


Awbery, S. S.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Moyle, A


Ayles, W. H.
Freeman, Maj. J (Watford)
Nally, W.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Naylor, T. E.


Bacon, Miss A.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Balfour, A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Barstow, P. G.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Barton, C.
Gibbins, J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Battley, J. R.
Gibson, C. W.
Oldfield, W. H.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Oliver, G. H.


Belcher, J. W.
Gooch, E. G.
Orbach, M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Berry, H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Parker, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Blackburn, A. R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Boardman, H.
Grey, C. F.
Pearson, A.


Bottomley, A. G.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Bowen, R.
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Perrins, W.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Popplewell, E.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Guy, W. H.
Porter, G, (Leeds)


Brook, D. (Haifax)
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Price, M. Philips


Brown, George (Belper)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Pritt, D. N.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Proctor, W. T


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Harrison, J.
Pryde, D. J.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Haworth, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Randall, H. E.


Burden, T. W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Ranger, J.


Burke, W. A.
Hicks, G.
Rees-Williams, D. R


Byers Lt.-Col. F.
Hobson, C. R.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Callaghan, James
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
House, G.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Chamberlain, R. A
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Rogers, G. H R


Champion, A. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Royle, C.


Chater, D.
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Sargood, R.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Segal, Dr. S.


Cluse, W. S.
Irving, W. J.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.


Cobb, F. A.
Janner, B.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Cocks, F. S.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Coldrick, W.
John, W.
Shurmer, P.


Collick, P.
Keenan, W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Collindridge, F
Kendall, W. D
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Collins, V. J.
Kenyon, C.
Skinnard, F. W.


Calman, Miss G. M.
King, E. M.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Kinley, J.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Corvedale, Viscount
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cove, W. G.
Lavers, S.
Snow, Capt, J. W.


Crawley, Frt.-Lieut. A
Leslie, J. R.
Sparks, J. A.


Crossman, R. H. S
Lever, Fl. Off. N. H.
Stamford, W.


Daggar, G.
Levy, B. W.
Stephen, C.


Daines, P.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Strachey, J.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Stubbs, A. E.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Swingler, S.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipson, D. L.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Logan, D. G
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McAdam, W.
Taylor, R J (Morpeth)


Deer, G.
McAllister, G.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McEntee, V. La T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Diamond, J.
McGhee, H. G.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Dobbie, W.
McGovern, J.
Thurtle, E.


Dodds, N. N.
Mack, J. D.
Tiffany, S.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Titterington, M. F


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McLeavy, F.
Tolley, L.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Usborne, Henry


Dye, S,
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Edelman, M.
Mayhew, C. P.
Walker, G. H.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Monslow, W.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)




Warbey, W. N.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Woodburn, A.


Weitzman, D.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Yates, V. F.


Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.
Williamson, T.



White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Willis, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Captain Michael Stewart and


Wigg, Col. G. E.
Wilson, J. H.
Mr. Simmons


Wilkins. W. A.
Wise, Major F. J.





NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Haughton, S. G.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Head, Brig. A. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Pickthorn, K.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prescott, Stanley


Beechman, N, A.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hollis, M. C.
Raikes, H, V.


Birch, Nigel
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells)
Hulbert, Wing-Comdr. N. J.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boothby, R.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Renton, D.


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jennings, R.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Ropner, Col. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H
Sanderson, Sir F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Savory, Prof. D L


Butcher, H. W.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R.A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Langford-Holt, J.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Carson, E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Challen, C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Snadden, W. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W S
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Linstead, H. N.
Spence, H. R.


Clifton Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Cuthbert, W. N.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Studholme, H, G


Davidson, Viscountess
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Sutcliffe, H.


De la Bère, R.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'ddt'n, S.)


Digby, Maj. S. W.
Maclay, Hon. J, S.
Teeling, William


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Vane, W. M. T.


Duthie, W. S.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Eccles, D. M.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Marples, A. E.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mellor, Sir J.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.



Gridley, Sir A.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Neven-Spence, Sir B
Mr. Drewe and Commander


Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'db'ge)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Agnew


Harris, H. Wilson
Osborne, C



Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 242.]
AYES.
[10.3 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Ewart, R.
McLeavy, F.


Allen, A C. (Bosworth)
Fairhurst, F.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Farthing, W. J.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Alpass, J. H.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Follick, M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Foot, M. M.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Attewell, H. C.
Forman, J. C.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Austin, H. L.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Awbery, S. S
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mathers, G.


Ayles, W. H
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Medland, H. M.


Ayrton Could, Mrs. B.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Middleton, Mrs. L


Bacon, Miss A.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Mikardo, Ian


Balfour, A.
Gallacher, W.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Barstow, P. G
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Monslow, W.


Barton, C.
Gibbins, J.
Moody, A. S.


Battley, J. R
Gibson, C. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gilzean, A.
Morley, R.


Belcher, J. W.
Glanville, J, E. (Consult)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Benson, G.
Gooch, E. G.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Berry, H.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Bing, G. H. C
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mort, D. L.


Binns, J.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Murray, J. D.


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Grenfell, D. R.
Nally, W.


Boardman, H.
Grey, C. F.
Naylor, T. E.


Bottomley, A. G.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Brook, D. (Halfax)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Gunter, Capt. R. J
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Brown, George (Belper)
Guy, W. H.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Haire, Fit-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
O'Brien, T.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hale, Leslie
Oldfield, W. H


Buchanan, G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Orbach, M.


Burden, T. W.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Paget, R. T.


Burke, W. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Callaghan, James
Harrison, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pargiter, G. A.


Champion, A. J.
Haworth, J.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.


Chater, D.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Clitherow, Dr R
Hobson, C. R.
Pearson, A.


Cluse, W. S
Holman, P.
Perrins, W-


Cobb, F. A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Cocks, F. S.
Hoy, J.
Porter, G. (Leads)


Coldrick, W.
Hubbard, T.
Price, M. Philips


Collick, P.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pritt, D. N.


Collindridge, F
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Proctor, W. T.


Collins, V. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pryde, D. J.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Pursey, Cmdr, H.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Irving, W. J.
Randall, H. E.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Janner, B.
Ranger, J.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rankin, J.


Crawley, Fit. Lieut. A
John, W.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Daggar, G.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Rhodes, H.


Daines, P.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Robens, A.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Keenan, W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kendall, W. D
Royle, C.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kenyon, C.
Sargood, R.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, E. M.
Scollan, T.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kingdom, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Davies, R J. (Westhoughton)
Kinley, J.
Segal, Dr. S.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirby, B. V.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.


Deer, G.
Kirkwood, D.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Delargy, Captain H. J.
Lavers, S.
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)


Diamond, J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shurmer, P.


Dobbie, W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Simmons, C. J.


Dodds, N. N.
Leonard, W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Donovan, T.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, Capt. C, (Colchester)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Levy, B. W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Dye, S.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Ede, Rt. Hon J C.
Lindgren, G, S.
Sparks, J. A.


Edelman, M.
Longden, F.
Stamford, W.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Lyne, A. W
Strachey, J.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McAdam, W
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
McGhee, H. G.
Swingler, S.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McGovern, J
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Edwards, W, J. (Whitechapel)
Mack, J. D.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, J. (Ogmore)
McKinlay, A. S
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)







Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Williamson, T.


Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)
Warbey, W. N.
Willis, E.


Tiffany, S.
Weitzman, D.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Timmons, J.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Wilson, J. H.


Titterington, M. F.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Wise, Major F. J


Tolley, L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Woodburn, A.


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wigg, Col. G. E.
Woods, G. S.


Turner-Samuels, H.
Wilkes, Maj. L.
Yates, V. F.


Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Wilkins, W. A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Usborne, Henry
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Zilliacus, K.


Viant, S. P.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)



Walkden, E.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Walker, G. H.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Mr. Drewe and




Commander Agncw




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'db'ge)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Head, Brig. A. H.
Raikes, H. V.


Baldwin, A. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Baxter, A. B.
Hope, Lord J.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Beechman, N. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. 5. (Southport)
Ropner, Cot. L.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hurd, A.
Scott, Lord W.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'brgh W)
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Bossom, A. C.
Jennings, R
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Lipson, D. L.
Snadden, W. M


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Spence, H. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Byers Lt.-Col. F.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Studholme, H. G.


Carson, E.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Challen, C.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Marsden, Capt. A.
Touche, G. C.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Turton, R. H.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Mellor, Sir J.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Molson, A. H. E
Walker-Smith, D.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Eccles, D. M.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Nicholson, G.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Nield, B. (Chester)
York, C.


George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Nutting, Anthony
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Glyn, Sir R.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.



Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Osborne, C
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Grimston, R. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Captain Michael Stewart and


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Pitman, I. J.
Mr. Popplewell

Question put accordingly,
That the Order, dated 18th June, 1946, amending the Soap (Licensing of Manufacturers and Rationing) (No. 2) Order, 1945 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 871), a copy of which

amending Order was presented on 24th June, be annulled."

The House divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 288.

Division No. 243.
AYES
10.14 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hogg, Hon. Q.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Hope, Lord J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Crowder, Capt. J. F. E
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)


Barlow, Sir J.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Hurd, A.


Baxter, A. B.
Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Beechman, N. A.
Drewe, C.
Jennings, R


Bennett, Sir P.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Kendall, W. D.


Boles, Lt.-Col D. C. (Wells)
Eccles, D. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Bossom, A. C
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Lipson, D. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Lucas, Major Sir J.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
McCallum, Maj. D.


Buchan-Hapburn, P. G. T.
Glyn, Sir R.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A, G
Maclay, Hon. J. S.


Byers Lt.-Col. F.
Grimston, R. V.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)


Carson, E.
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)


Challen, C.
Hare, Lieut.-Col. Hon. J. H. (W'db'ge)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Manningham-Buller, R, E.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Marlowe, A. A. H.




Marsden, Capt. A.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Molson, A. H. E.
Ropner, Col. L.
Touche, G. C.


Morrison, Mai. J. G. (Salisbury)
Scott, Lord W.
Turton, R. H.


Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Shephard, S. (Newark)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Walker-Smith, D.


Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Smithers, Sir W.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Nicholson, G.
Snadden, W. M.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Nield, B. (Chester)
Spence, H. R.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Nutting, Anthony
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


Osborne, C.
Studholme, H. G.
York, C


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Sutcliffe, H.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Pitman, I. J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)



Raikes, H. V.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ramsay, Maj. S
Thomson, Sir D. (Aberdeen, S.)
Sir John Mellor and




Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre.




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Delargy, Captain H. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Diamond, J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Dobbie, W.
Irving, W. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crews)
Dodds, N. N.
Janner, B.


Alpass, J. H.
Donovan, T.
Jeger, G (Winchester)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Driberg, T. E. N.
John, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)
Jones, D. T (Hartlepools)


Attewell, H. C.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Jones, J. H. (Balton)


Austin, H. L.
Dye, S.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Awbery, S. S.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J C
Keenan, W


Ayles, W H.
Edelman, M.
Kenyon, C


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Edwards, A (Middlesbrough, E.)
King, E M.


Bacon, Miss A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E


Balfour, A.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Kinley, J.


Barstow, P. G
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Kirkwood, D


Barton, C.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lavers, S.


Battley, J. R.
Evans, E (Lowestoft)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Bechcrvaise, A. E.
Evans, J. (Ogmare)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Belcher, J. W.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Leonard, W.


Benson, G
Ewart, R.
Leslie, J. R.


Berry, H.
Fairhurst, F.
Levy, B. W.


Bing, G. H. C
Farthing, W. J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Binns, J.
Fletcher, E G. M. (Islington. E.)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Blenkinsop, Capt A
Follick, M.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Boardman, H.
Foot, M. M.
Lindgren, G. S


Bottomley, A. G.
Forman, J, C.
Logan, D. G.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Lyne, A. W.


Braddock, Mrs. E- M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McAdam, W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
McGhee, H. G.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McGovern, J.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Gaitskell, H. T. N
Mack, J. D.


Brawn, George (Belper)
Gallacher, W.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McKinlay, A. S.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Gibbins, J
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Buchanan, G.
Gibson, C. W
McLeavy, F.


Burden, T. W
Gilzean, A.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Burke, W. A.
Glanville, J. E (Consett)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Callaghan, James
Gooch, E. G
Mainwaring, W. H.


Chamberlain, R. A
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Champion, A. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Chater, D.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Grenfell, D. R
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Grey, C F.
Mathers, G.


Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Medland, H. M


Cobb, F. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Middleton, Mrs. L


Cocks, F. S.
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Mikardo, Ian


Coldrick, W.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Collick, P.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Monslow, W.


Collindridge, F.
Guy, W. H.
Moody, A. S.


Collins, V. J.
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hate, Leslie
Morley, R.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Corbel, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hardy, E. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon H. (Lewisham, E.)


Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.
Harrison, J.
Mort, D. L.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Murray, J. D.


Daggar, G.
Haworth, J.
Nally, W.


Daines, P.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Naylor, T. E.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hobson, C. R.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Holman, P.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hoy, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hubbard, T.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
O'Brien, T.


Deer, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Oldfield, W. H.







Orbach, M.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A
Viant, S. P.


Paget, R. T.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Walkden, E.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Walker, G. H.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Shurmer, P.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


pargiter, G. A.
Simmons, C J.
Warbey, W. N.


Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Skinnard, F. W.
Weitzman, D.


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Pearson, A.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Perrins, W.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Sparks, J. A-
Wilkins, W. A.


Price, M. Philips
Stamford, W.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Pritt, D. N.
Strachey, J.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Proctor, W. T
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Pryde, D. J.
Swingler, S.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Pursey, Cmdr H
Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Randall, H. E.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Williamson, T.


Ranger, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Willis, E.


Rankin, J.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wills, Mrs. E A


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wilson, J. H.


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)
Wise, Major F. J


Rhodes, H.
Tiffany, S.
Woodburn, A.


Robens, A,
Timmons, J.
Woods, G. S


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Titterington, M F.
Yates, V. F.


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Tolley, L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Royle, C.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G
Younger, Hon Kenneth


Sargood, R.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Zilliacus, K


Scollan, T.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.



Scott-Elliot, W
Usborne, Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Segal, Dr. S
Vernon, Maj. W F
Captain Michael Stewart and




Mr. Popplewell.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY NATIONALISATION BILL

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."—[Mr. Shinwell.]

Captain Crookshank: Before we proceed to the consideration of the Lords Amendments, is not the Minister of Fuel and Power going to make some statement?

3.40 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): I thought that, as general agreement had been reached in another

place on the form and, indeed, the substance of the Amendments, it was unnecessary for me to offer any observations at this stage. What I had in mind was that, if hon. Members wished to elicit any information on any of the Amendments, I should be glad to furnish it. I can say that, generally speaking, agreement has been reached. There has been, of course, some compromise as that was inevitable in the circumstances. Our attention was directed in another place to what were regarded as defects in the Clauses; our representatives in another place listened attentively to the submissions that were made to them, and agreement was reached. I can find nothing objectionable in the form of the Amendments. I cannot think of anything else I should say at this stage. I would not say that I am quite satisfied but I feel


that what appears on the Order Paper should satisfy right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

Captain Crookshank: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. It is, indeed, surprising to think that we have now reached a stage at which he cannot think of anything else to say. This is very different from the ebullience with which this Bill started on its Second Reading. There were no indications then of what would be the final result, but I take it, from what the Minister has said, that, generally speaking, he is going to recommend the House to accept the Amendments as we come to them. We did want to know that, because it may shorten our proceedings if we know that that is the general idea.
I would like to make the comment that here we are with 15 pages of Amendments, and if it is not unprecedented, it must be years, since we had such an enormous number of Amendments sent down from another place. For that, the Government ought to be exceedingly grateful. The right hon. Gentleman said that his representatives in another place had listened very attentively. The result of their listening very attentively is shown in this document, and the Government, at least, should be grateful indeed for what has been done in another place. The great bulk of these Amendments are drafting and clarifying Amendments, which is one vindication of what we have been saying all along—that Bills introduced into this House, and passed under the present procedure, do not get sufficient attention here. If this Bill had not been so rushed in its later stages here, some of the points covered by these drafting and clarifying Amendments could have been dealt with more reasonably by this House. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have, therefore, every reason to be grateful to another place for the care and attention given to this Measure and for the Amendments which have been inserted.
There are some Amendments on which the right hon. Gentleman says some compromise was inevitable, and on which agreement was reached. For that, again, the Government should be extremely grateful, because that is one point which we argued, we thought very cogently, in this House. Now that our points have

come back to us in the form of Government Amendments introduced in another place, they do show to the Government the advantage of an opportunity for second thoughts. For that reason, the action which has been taken elsewhere has been greatly to the public interest. If we accept these Amendments, undoubtedly the Bill will leave us in a far better form than it was in previously. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will put to his colleagues, and, more particularly, to the Lord President of the Council, who, after all, is the nigger in this particular woodpile, that more time should be given to discussion in this House, in order that we should not, in future, have to spend a whole day on Lords Amendments which we could have taken in our stride at an earlier stage.

Mr. Naylor: Are we to understand that, after what has taken place, another place is discharged without a stain on its character?

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of National Coal Board and functions thereof.)

Lords Amendment: In page I, line 17, at end, insert:
in all respects, including the avoidance of any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
There was no question of the National Coal Board showing undue preference, but the point required clarification and we agreed to this Amendment. As regards the earlier observations of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, I can only say that we shall be everlastingly grateful.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The House will admire the skill and reticence with which the right hon. Gentleman has skated over this particularly thin ice as we begin our afternoon's proceedings. He tells us that this is in the nature of a clarifying, or almost drafting, Amendment to make clear what was always inherent in the purpose of the Bill. Those who had not the opportunity of being on the Standing Committee or have not


attended the Report stage of the Bill would hardly realise the long, bitter and sometimes acrimonious discussions that we had on this topic. This question of discrimination was one of the major issues discussed and debated at length in Committee, and, at every point, the right hon. Gentleman, in varying moods, sometimes, with his well-known light humour, and, sometimes, in his more bitter and sarcastic manner, resisted every attempt of my hon. Friends and myself to introduce this conception that there should not be discrimination between similar classes of users. Fortunately, what we were unable to achieve has been achieved in another place. Whether from natural traditionalism, which is part of the old Labour movement, or from greater deference to another place, those words which, when they came from common mouth, fell despised were, when they came from noble lips, gladly received.
Having carefully read the speeches of what the right hon. Gentleman calls his "representatives in another place," I cannot but rejoice at the result of the discussion on this matter. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor would particularly like to be called the "representative" of the Minister of Fuel and Power, who treats him as a kind of trade union delegate. In more ancient days the Lord Chancellor was regarded as quite an important officer of State. Of course, he is well known to be a willing worker in many and varying causes, from time to time, but, in any case, having carefully read what he said in the course of the discussions on this point, I feel that he tried to meet the very substantial and important points which lay behind the discrimination argument and did so with great good sense and with great moderation. As I understand it, from what he said, and what the Minister, no doubt, would tell us if he were pressed, the words make it clear that, while different prices can be quoted to different classes of users—it might be decided in the national interest to quote a lower price to steel works as a whole than, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer instanced, for dog-racing tracks—there should not be discrimination between users of the same class. It is a well-known fact that, in all forms of statutory companies or boards, the discrimination clause

allows different rates to be charged for different classes of service. That is inherent, for example in the railway rate system; it lies at the very root of it, but it prevents discriminatory charges to users within the same category. As I understand it, these words, when accepted and passed by this House, will have this effect.
This being one of the major issues upon which we challenged the Government and upon which the Government were most obstinate and recalcitrant, it is a great satisfaction to us to see that the Government have now met the argument which is, in logic, irresistible. Although, as I say, the right hon. Gentleman has tried to cover his retreat—as, indeed, any good tactical commander should do—with the minimum of notice, yet I believe that the country will not fail to observe how valuable, as my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) said, has been the work of the Second Chamber, and how wise the right hon. Gentleman would be if he were not always to rely on the big battalions which, for the moment, he can mass in one House of Parliament because, finally, he is unable to get his representatives to put forward arguments which they do not believe to be sound. The weight of argument and the weight of logic sometimes turn his representatives into indifferent servants of his own Ministry, although they are good representatives of the national interest.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker? Are we going to have a Debate on the functions, good or bad, of another place on every Amendment? Is it not a fact that the House is already tired of the points made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in their speeches, and could we not discuss the Amendment now before the House, and not what happened in another place? I submit that the House may get a little tired if this repetition continues.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that we shall have such a Debate. Hon. Members have made their points and I have no doubt that they will be reasonable.

Sir Arnold Gridley: In spite of what has just fallen from the lips of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), I do not think that those of us who wish, and are entitled, to say a few words should be prevented from


doing so. I wish, first, to thank the Minister for agreeing to his noble Friends in another place inserting this Amendment. He will remember that, in Standing Committee, I took a very strong view about the importance of this question of discrimination and undue preference. But the arguments which I and some of my hon. Friends put forward were simply treated with contempt. As a matter of fact, if I remember rightly, the Minister, in rebutting a similar Amendment, said there might be cases in which he would want to discriminate. Therefore, he has obviously had second thoughts, and, as we all know, second thoughts are often better. At any rate we are very glad that the Minister's second thoughts in agreeing with his noble Friends in another place have prevailed.
I would point out that we spent a lot of time in Committee in debating points of this kind—time which would have been much better spent in dealing with other matters, had the Minister exercised his common sense and given way where he could without detriment to the Bill. Parliament is being asked to work extremely hard and for long hours. We are all suffering from legislative indigestion, if I may put it that way, and I doubt whether, under such pressure, Bills such as this are being put on the Statute Book in the best form we are not turning out high-class legislation; we are turning out mass legislation. We have here a very good example of trying to push a most important Measure through Parliament without adequate time or thought being given to the consideration of the thousand and one points which arise when one is dealing with such a great industry as coal.
I felt very strongly about this because, as hon. Members know, all my business life I have had to carry on under Sections of Acts of Parliament which provide just that protection to consumers which this Bill will now provide. But, until it was amended in another place, it did not provide any security for them whatsoever. Having had to pay due regard all my life to the risk of running my neck into the noose, if I discriminated between one consumer and another, and the fact that I might find myself in court as a consequence, it seemed to me unreasonable that the Government, especially as they were going to step into the shoes of the

present owners, should not be prepared, readily and unhesitatingly, to accept the responsibility which Parliament had thought it necessary to impose upon suppliers in the case of other quasi-monopolies, or a monopoly such as coal will become when this Bill becomes an Act. There have been cases where representatives of gas or electricity undertakings have been taken to court for such discrimination.
I wish to point the moral here that we have taken up a good deal of time on this Measure which could have been saved, had the Government been more ready, in this House, to give way on points on which they have unhesitatingly given way in another place. I hope that this protest, which I have tried to make in restrained and dignified language, will have some effect on the way in which future Bills will proceed.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I did not give quite a complete answer to the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). I should remind him that there is the Rule with regard to repetition, which, after all, is in my hands, and of which I am aware.

Mr. Jennings: As a member of the Standing Committee, I would like to say how much I appreciate the fact that the Minister, even at this stage, has agreed to the principle involved in this Amendment. He referred to it as a drafting Amendment, but involves a serious major principle. I do not want to repeat what other hon. Members have said. I am taking due notice of what you, Mr. Speaker, have suggested, and I think that if we all do so, we shall get on better and save a lot of time. Let it also be an example to hon. Members opposite. I am glad that the Minister has seen common sense in this matter. It is, as I say, a major principle, and the people outside who will be affected by this Amendment will have reason to be grateful. The Opposition brought this matter forward with strength and consistency, and at last they have been rewarded by its acceptance by the Minister. I hope it will go out to the country that rush tactics, after all, do not make good legislation.

Colonel Clarke: I am glad that this Amendment has been


accepted, because I feel that the principle involved is one of much greater scope than that which is involved in the Bill itself. In the future, as the Government's programmes mature, we are likely to see private enterprise and the national operation of industries going on side by side. They will be judged by their results. If by control of one of the major raw materials of such industries, such as coal, it is possible for the Government to handicap their opponents—I do not say they would do so, but they might—we will not get a fair field and we will not be able to judge fairly the results of nationalisation. I hope this Amendment will prevent anything of that sort happening, and will give to those who are prepared to watch the progress of nationalisation from an impartial point of view and on its merits, a real opportunity to judge it fairly.

Mr. David Eccles: I would like the Minister to give us his interpretation of the words in the Amendment:
any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage.
The Minister will recall that I moved an Amendment about discriminating prices, which was rejected, and that my main point was that two consumers in like circumstances should be charged the same price. If the Minister defines two consumers in like circumstances by saying that they must belong to the same industry, and that otherwise he can discriminate between them, I do not think that will be satisfactory. It is very hard to define what an industry is nowadays. One industry overlaps another, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows very well, and the situation is getting worse. Under Clause 1 of the Bill, the Coal Board itself will carry on a multitude of activities. What we want is an assurance that, merely because the Coal Board is the owner of, let us say, a chemical process, it will not sell coal to that chemical works at a different price from that for which it sells coal to an independent chemical works, although the Coal Board's own works might well be classified as coming within the coal industry and not within the chemical industry. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us as fully as he can, what he has in mind when

defining two consumers whose rights to have coal sold to them at the same price are protected by these rather vague words.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 41, at end, insert:
(b) The benefit of the practical knowledge and experience of such persons in the organisation and conduct of the operations in which they are employed.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment provides an additional objective for the Board. It was represented to us that, although the Board was empowered to seek the establishment of joint machinery for the purposes of considering terms and conditions of employment, and, indeed, all matters pertaining to the welfare of the industry, further consultation might be necessary on the organisation and conduct of the Board's operations, and that individuals might be brought in. It is not very easy to see how this would be possible administratively, but, at any rate, it is worth a trial. It is very desirable that the fullest measure of cooperation and collaboration should emerge and, therefore, we have accepted this proposal.

Mr. H. Macmillan: This Amendment is one which I and my hon. Friends welcome very much. As the right hon. Gentleman has told us, it is of considerable importance. It is within the recollection of the House that when the Bill was first introduced, no reference of any kind was made in it to the position of those engaged in the industry. Under pressure from the Opposition, there was introduced at a late stage in the Committee, a Clause dealing with conciliation in general, and the setting up of appropriate machinery for the consultation of those engaged in the industry. It was a curious and, indeed, remarkable omission from one of the first great nationalising Bills, that from start to finish not the slightest reference was made to the people engaged in operating the pits. I have studied with some care the Debates on this Clause in another place, and I think we are indebted to a very respected figure in our national life, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, who first raised this question. In deference to his views, the representative of the Government in another place


moved this Amendment which adds an important duty and one not to be neglected by any means.
As I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, the ultimate success of industry, whether it falls in the national or the free field, will depend upon happy and harmonious association among those engaged in it. If it can be held up as an objective to be steadily worked towards in either field of industry, that there shall be a close association of the employees, not merely with welfare conditions, not merely with the old conception of wages and welfare, but with the actual operations of industry, that they shall have a right to be consulted, and that the practice of the most modern type of industrial conciliation shall be aimed at in this new nationalised industry, then I think that we shall have gained something of importance. It may be difficult to administer. It may be that it will take time, care and all sorts of experiments before we reach the ideal, but I think that we have done wisely. Frankly, I regret that we on this side of the House did not raise this particular point in these precise words. I think this Amendment is an addition which, no matter what we may think of the wisdom of the machinery we are setting up in the coal industry, hon. Members of all parties are pleased to see in the Bill, so that it shall be among the duties of the new Board to strive for the closest association of the employees generally with the whole sphere of the operations of the Board. It is a question not only of what used to be regarded as the rights of trades unions to be consulted, but of the concern of the employees with the much wider sphere of the general conduct and success of the industry in which they lived and worked, and to which they are, after all, the major contributors. Therefore, I welcome this Amendment. I think the Government have done well to accept it and that it adds a definite advantage to the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Consumers' councils.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 32, after "supply," insert:
whether for home use or for export.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment adds words which make it clear that coal exporters may serve on the Industrial Coal Consumers' Council, and that Council may consider matters affecting the sale and supply, whether for home use or for the export of coal, coke or manufactured fuel. There was considerable discussion during the Committee stage as regards the position of exporters. At that time, it was my view that exporters would come in, and the export of coal would have to be considered by the Industrial Coal Consumers' Council. That is still my view. However it was thought it would be to our advantage, and to the advantage of the Board, if the point was clarified by means of this insertion being made. Therefore, we have agreed to this.

Colonel Clarke: I am glad that the word "export" will now appear in the Bill. On the Second Reading, I vigorously urged that that should be the case. I felt the Minister was being perhaps a little defeatist in not including it, and was taking the attitude that the present lamentable state of our exports is bound to continue. I will remind the House what those exports have been in the past. In 1913, over 94,000,000 tons of coal, including foreign bunkers, were exported; in 1938 that had sunk to 46,000,000 tons. In 1923 the sale and export of coal alone brought £122,000,000 into this country's balance of trade. Today we have a very different and more sombre picture. In the five months January to May, 1946, only 2,110,000 tons of coal and coke were exported. That compares with a corresponding period, that is to say five-twelfths, of the 1938 export, in the ratio of 2,110,000 to 14,940,000. It is not a matter of quantity alone. What is the quality of that which we are exporting now? Occasionally a decent cargo of coke is sent, but most of what is going is coke breeze and open-cast coal, which is steadily deteriorating the goodwill value of our-trade abroad. Luckily, up till now the. United States have been in very much the same position. She has not been able to export coal as she used to, but it looks as if that position is changing at the moment. There are other serious competitors appearing on the horizon. Poland, who before the war only produced from——

Mr. Speaker: It does not seem to me that on this Amendment we can discuss the whole problem of the export trade.

Colonel Clarke: If I might come to the point, I was going to ask permission, in view of this part of the Bill being a sort of sandwich in which export appears twice, whether I might refer to something under line 42, or if I ought to wait. It does arise out of what I have said.

Mr. Speaker: On this Amendment we cannot discuss another Amendment which is still to come. The hon. and gallant Member will have to defer his remarks.

Colonel Clarke: I will terminate my remarks by repeating how glad I am that export is now recognised in this Bill. I hope it means it will come back to something like its former glory before very long.

4.15 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: May I, as one who pleaded in Committee for some recognition of the position in which the export trade finds itself, add my appreciation of the fact that this important word has found its way into the Bill at last? We must not be grudging in this matter if our efforts did not bear fruit upstairs, whereas the efforts in another place have succeeded. Let us accept our personal failure with humility, and be thankful that the country has now got what we were asking it should have I wish to tell the Minister that this recognition of the export trade will give considerable satisfaction among a large body of commercial people in this country who have not yet abandoned hope that the coal export trade may one day revive. They hope that the presence of a representative on the Consumers' Council, charged particularly with the interest of the export trade, means that in future he will have plenty to do.

Mr. Jennings: I would like to thank the Minister for accepting this Amendment. Nobody knows better than the Minister the position of the coalfields on the North-East coast; he has known it for many years. I am sure those on the coalfields there will be very grateful. The great exporting collieries will be very grateful they are to have some representation on these councils. I need hardly tell the Minister that this will give them satisfaction, because from an exporting point of view the future is a matter of serious concern to them. I hope that the Minister's desire for a recovery of the export trade will be

realised. Proper representation on these councils will encourage that trade.

Mr. H. Macmillan: We are all grateful to the Government for having agreed to this Amendment. It has been said that the country would be grateful also. I think that is true. Of course, they must also realise this is one of those narrow squeaks; it is one of those pieces of good fortune one has in life. By but a very slender margin we did finally press this point home. It was debated on the Second Reading, in the Committee, on Report and in another place. An Amendment in these terms was resisted by Government representatives, both in Committee and on Report. However, by an agreeable procedure which they have in another place—but which, as far as I know, we have not yet got here—it was brought in at the very last minute, upon the Third Reading. It is aid there is great rejoicing over the sinner that repenteth. Even if he repent at the very last moment of his dying breath, I think we should not withhold our due gratitude.

Mr. Bowles: Mr. Speaker, now that you have given a Ruling on the point about repetition, might I ask whether we could have one vote of thanks moved by one hon. Member opposite in respect of all of these Amendments?

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 42, at end, insert:
In formulating his proposals for appointments to each of the said councils, the Minister shall have particular regard to nominations made to him by the said bodies representative of the interests concerned of persons recommended by them as having both adequate knowledge of the requirements of those interests and also qualifications for exercising a wide and impartial judgment on the matters to be dealt with by the council generally.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
In this Amendment it is intended that the Minister should take note of the claims of various bodies to be represented on the Consumers' Council. That, of course, was the intention, and I stated that very clearly during the Committee stage. As there was some ambiguity in the minds of certain people as to our intentions, and as they pressed the point, I have agreed to accept this Amendment.

Colonel Clarke: I want to ask the Minister a specific question on this Amendment. Is it his intention to invite a member or members of the British Coal Exporters Federation to be a member of the Industrial Consumers' Council? I am not a member of that organisation myself but, as the Minister knows, I have an interest in this matter, and I wanted to ask him that specific question. I do not need to call his attention to the value of what that body has built up in the last 26 years, with their great knowledge of our export markets and organisation abroad. They are recognised as the body who have collected this information and built up a goodwill which, before the war, helped us to establish the trade I spoke of just now. There is a great reservoir of information there which could be of the greatest possible value.

Captain Crookshank: I understood the Minister to say that the effect of this was to compel him to have regard to the claims of bodies to be represented. Is he right there? I have not understood it in that sense. I thought it meant that he had to consult bodies representative of the interests, while under this Amendment he would be required to have regard to nominations made by the said bodies. I take "nominations" to mean the actual names of particular individuals whom these bodies wished him to consider as members of the councils. Probably it was just a slip in words on his part?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not aware that I slipped up, though I may have done; I certainly had no intention to do so. The point is made quite clear in the Amendment. In regard to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), the Amendment says:
The Minister shall have regard to nominations made to him by the said bodies representative of the interests concerned.
That was the intention in forming the consumers' councils—that the various interests should be consulted. They may have special views as regards the type of representative who should serve on a consumers' council, or upon any other point, and they should be consulted. This makes it clear not only that they are to be consulted, but that the Minister must pay particular regard to any particular nomination, and that is exactly

what will occur. As to the hon. Members point about the Coal Exporters' Council, I could not agree to accept that offhand. There may be other councils which require to be consulted. The essential consideration is that, whatever proposals are put before the Minister, he must have the best men—and the best women—on the consumers' councils serving the public interest, although no doubt they serve special industries at the same time. That is the intention, and that is what will be provided.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 40, at end, insert:
(8) Each of the said councils shall make an annual report to the Minister, and the Minister shall lay the reports before each House of Parliament.
(9) A regional industrial coal consumers' council or a regional domestic coal consumers' council may be appointed by the Minister for any prescribed locality for which such appointment appears to him to be expedient, whether in consequence of or apart from a recommendation in that behalf of the Industrial Council or the Domestic Council, as the case may he, established under Subsection (1) of this Section and provision may be made by regulations for the dissolution of a regional council appointed for any locality if it appears to the Minister that such a council is no longer needed for that locality, or for the variation of the locality for which such a council is to act.
(10) Where there is a regional council for any locality, then, as regards consumers and sale or supply in that locality, the regional council shall be charged with the performance of such of the duties imposed on the Industrial Council or the Domestic Council, as the case may be, by Subsection (3) or (4) of this Section as may be prescribed, and provision may be made by regulations as to the regional council's reporting to the Industrial Council or the Domestic Council, as the case may be, established under Subsection (1) of this Section or direct to the Minister, and generally as to the relations between the regional council and the said Industrial Council or Domestic Council.
(11) Subsections (2), (6) and (7) of this section shall apply to a regional council as they apply to the Industrial Council or the Domestic Council, as the case may be, established under Subsection (1) of this Section, with the substitution of references to consumers in the locality for which the regional council is to act and to sale or supply therein for references to consumers and to sale or supply generally, and Subsection (5) of this Section shall apply on the notification or making direct to the Minister of conclusions or a report of a regional council.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is rather a long Amendment, but it is necessary because of two considerations that have come to our attention. One is the question of whether the councils should make an annual report to the Minister, and the other, rather more substantial, is whether the Minister should lay the reports he receives before each House of Parliament. I pointed out in Committee that that was my intention, but there was some vagueness about it in the minds of hon. Members of the Committee, and they pressed the point. On further consideration we have agreed to this Amendment, which we think is a reasonable compromise. It means that the consumers' councils will make their annual reports to the Minister, who will be in duty bound to lay them before Parliament, which no doubt will be able to take advantage of the presentation of the reports and, if desired, enter into debate upon them.
The second point has regard to the consumers' councils themselves. It was intended to have two national consumers' councils, one for industrial and the other for domestic purposes. There was some question whether it was necessary to split them up into regions. I had it in mind that it might be possible to delegate some of the members of the national councils to particular regions, but in all the circumstances it may be more desirable to create, in addition to the national councils, regional councils—and that is proposed in this Amendment.

Sir A. Gridley: I am not quite sure from what the Minister has just said what will be the effect of the word "may" in the second line of Subsection (9) in the Amendment. The Subsection says:
A regional industrial coal consumers' council or a regional domestic coal consumers' council may be appointed by the Minister. …
Although we do not seek to alter it now, we do feel rather strongly that the word should be "shall" or "must." The Minister has expressed an intention which goes some part of the way to meet our fears, but if he can say something a little stronger about his intentions, we shall be better satisfied.

Mr. Shinwell: The reason why it is left permissive is that, while it may be desirable to create regional councils in particular regions where they are very much

required, it may not be necessary in other areas. We therefore thought it better to leave it permissive, rather than make it an instruction.

Captain Crookshank: In the presence of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), I dare to say that this is a good Amendment. I will take it further than that, and say that this is an extremely good Amendment, and we are grateful to the Minister for his second thoughts. We always held the view that publicity ought to be given to what happened as a result of the consumers' councils' investigations, and we stressed the point on several occasions. The Minister said that it was always his intention that this should be done, but I am glad that he has realised that it is better, from the point of view of Parliament and of the nation, to have a statutory obligation than to rely on the Minister's intentions. Not that for one moment I would mistrust this particular Minister when he gives a statement of his intentions, but as we all know, times and Ministers inevitably change—in fact, one or two Ministers have changed during the period of the passage of this Bill—and it is, therefore, very much wiser that this should be put in, and we are grateful to the Minister for having done so. Otherwise, although it might be said that there was always the possibility of debate in this House, we did not see how debate could arise if we did not have given to us the information upon which we could raise it. Now there will be proper reports, and I am sure that it is a good thing.
As regards the rest of the Amendment, again I think that it is better to have an arrangement for proper regional councils than delegation of authority, as the Minister indicated, to investigate by the main consumers' councils. We may, of course, be wrong, but it has always been very much in our minds that there were bound to be many local complaints. The Minister will remember that we talked a great deal about the poor lady who was a constituent of one of the hon. Members of the Committee upstairs, and who had wanted to know to whom she could complain if the quality or price of her coal was wrong. She is more likely to get her complaints attended to if there are regional councils than if we merely rely upon one national body. Coal enters so much into the lives both of individuals and of industrial users that we always thought there would


be many causes for complaint. The Minister has, at long last, met us on that, and we are very grateful to him for it.
I take it that the words of the Money Resolution which we passed are wide enough to cover any expenses of these councils. I have looked at it, and I think it is so, because the Money Resolution merely talks of the councils and it does not specify that they shall be national and not regional. So we are grateful for this, and we think it is much wiser to put these things into the Statute, than to rely on the intentions of a Minister.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Tiffany: This Amendment will bring more fully into view the views of the domestic consumers, and we of the Cooperative movement are pleased that this is going to be done. It is mainly from the domestic consumers' point of view that I want to lay stress on this Amendment. We have found that we have had better working, when that has been done regionally rather than nationally. I think that we can say that this is a good Amendment, and one that we can endorse.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Transfer of interests in patents and designs.)

Lords Amendment: In page line 9, at end, insert:
("(10) Part V of the First Schedule to this Act shall apply (so far as relevant) for the purposes of this Section as it applies for the purposes of that Schedule with the substitution, for references to an option notice date, of references to the date on which a notice exercising an option under Subsection (1) of this Section is given.")

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is rather more than drafting, although it is consequential. It is necessary to provide so that there shall be no disposal of assets between the date of publication of the Bill and the primary vesting date, and that is, in fact, provided for in the Bill. It was necessary to provide this Amendment in order to ensure that the same provisions should apply in the case of patents and designs.

CLAUSE 7.—(Transfer of rights and liabilities under contracts.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 23, after "section," insert:
and being provisions which were entered into on or after the first day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-five, or which have been varied after that date.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a rather more substantial Amendment and, perhaps, I may be permitted a word of explanation. As hon. Members who were on the Committee are aware, the question of contracts entered into before August, 1945, was under discussion, and the point emerged, arising from the original provisions of the Clause, as to whether contracts entered into without due prudence should be acceptable to the National Coal Board. It was my opinion that that was a very desirable provision, but, as a result of discussions that have ensued since the Committee Stage, it was thought desirable to modify the contracts provisions; and so the proposal to bring into discussion the contracts preceding August, 1945, in the light of whether or not they were entered into prudently, is now excluded, and it is only those contracts entered into after August, 1945, which are to receive consideration.

Major Peter Roberts: I wish to support this Amendment with the leave of the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) because indicates a very important change of policy. The impression before given to the country, to servants in the coal industry with long-standing contracts, which were made before August, 1945, was that the whole stability of their lives was to be upset by the policy of the Government, because if their contracts were proved not "reasonably necessary," irrespective of whether they were "prudent" or not, the Coal Board could turn them out into the street, so that they would be left only with the protection of the colliery companies, who were going out of business. We did stress this, and I want publicity to be given to this change, so that that feeling in the country can be put right.
The Attorney-General, who, I am sorry to see, is not here—for it was he who dealt with the matter—said that there might be one or two "rotten" contracts, and that


the whole stability of the necessary contracts would be put in jeopardy by this Amendment. In the Committee on 13th March he said the Government had taken powers to see that that was not so. This caused a good deal of dismay. I have met people in the country who have mentioned this point to me. I do hope note will be taken of this change of policy. Even on Third Reading the learned Attorney still persisted that this was what he called "misconceived." I think a great deal of delay could have been saved if the Government, from the very beginning, had appreciated the point. The only point I wish to stress now is, that publicity should be given to the fact that these people are to have security of tenure.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I welcome this Amendment because it carries out a proposal which I made in the Standing Committee, and about which the learned Attorney-General was particularly scathing on behalf of the Government. There has been a considerable change of view, and a change of view for the better. I think that there is one aspect that ought, perhaps, to be mentioned even at this late stage. As the Bill originally came before this Home, the Government were going to make a very good thing out of this provision. If, in fact, a ban on the assets of the mining industry were made, having regard to the fact that those assets might be affected by a number of very bad contracts, they were, in fact, going to pay less for the assets they were taking over by reason of the bad contracts, and then, on top of that, they were reserving to themselves the right to repudiate those contracts, and so save themselves that amount of money a second time. So that all they are doing here is nothing more than a belated act of justice.
There is one small drafting point which, I think, should be mentioned at this stage. As the Bill will stand after this Amendment, the whole of this Clause, or certainly Subsection (2), will only be applicable to contracts made on or after the 1st day of August, 1945. I see that in Subsection (3) those words reappear:
In the case of a provision for the rendering of personal services or for the giving of consideration therefore being a provision which was entered into on or after the first day of

August, nineteen hundred and forty-five, or which has been varied after that date. …
It can only be such provision after this Amendment is made to the earlier Subsection, and I do not see how those words can have any operative effect at all. It may be that they will do nothing but confuse the issue, and lead to some possible misinterpretation of intentions of Parliament. I do not know what the Government think, but I suggest that some further Amendment be made.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Would the right hon. Gentleman look at this drafting point and see whether it requires treatment?

Mr. Shinwell: I think that the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) misunderstands the point of the provision to which he has referred. This relates to "personal services." He will remember that there was a very long discussion in Committee when it was argued at great length that in the case of land contracts there should be no reference to arbitration unless the Minister consented; in the other case the matter does not arise.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am not disputing the principle. I was trying to prove that Subsection (3) can only apply to contracts made after a particular date, and that it is therefore otiose for the date to be put in again.

Mr. Shinwell: All I can say is that we have gone through the Bill with a fine-tooth comb, and that we are satisfied it is in order.

Mr. H. Macmillan: On the broad issue, this is a matter of very deep importance. Once again it is a complete reversal of the attitude taken up by the right hon. Gentleman and by the Attorney-General, with varying degrees of truculence, throughout the whole of our discussions. Now that they are standing in white sheets, let us at least give them the credit for that drapery. Not only did they resist it with this arrogant air of omniscience, which they have taken up throughout the whole of our discussion in Committee and on the Report stage, but they have tried to obstruct our friends in another place, to resist it, and in Committee their representatives did resist it. But the weight of argument of noble Lords, and even of learned noble Lords, was too much even for the Chancellor. I am glad that this


monstrous provision in the Bill has now been abandoned by universal consent; it marks a triumph for the ordinary rules of common fair play and equity.

CLAUSE 7.—(Transfer of rights and liabilities under contracts.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1o, line 35, leave out from "be" to the end of line 37.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Strange as it may seem to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), this Amendment and a later Amendment related to the same point have been inserted to deal with a matter raised by him. I have the greatest difficulty in pleasing the right hon. Gentleman. If I am alleged to be arrogant, and be it noted I say "alleged," the right hon. Gentleman dislikes it intensely, but, on the other hand, if I am reasonable, he has some doubt in his mind whether it is the right thing for me to do. However, I am going to give the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues all the credit, so long as I get the Bill, Originally, if the Board were of the opinion that an unreasonable contract should not be transferred to them, they could, by notice, repudiate it. That was explicitly stated in the Bill—subject, of course, to arbitration in the case of any differences arising. On the other hand, if the matter was submitted to arbitrators, it would not be known between the date of arbitration notice and arbitration award whether the contract was to continue in existence. There would be doubt during these dates, and that was the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman. The position as to the extent to which each contract is to be transferred is set out in the Second Schedule. The Amendments clarify the position, and if there is repudiation and no reference to arbitration, the Schedule shall be treated as never having applied to the contract. On the other hand, if there is arbitration and the award of the arbitrators is contrary to the notice of repudiation, the Second Schedule shall be treated as having applied continuously, notwithstanding the serving of the notice. We have tried to meet the point which was raised by the right hon. Gentleman. There was a good deal of legal verbiage

in the offing at the time, although I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else for this. As I say, there was a good deal of legalistic dialectic associated with this matter, and there was some doubt in my mind as to the exact meaning. However, I think that the point has been clarified, that this improves the Bill—it certainly improves the wording—and that we now know where we stand.

4.45 P.m.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I must respond in that delightful tone with which the right hon. Gentleman has moved to agree with this Amendment. If I did not know from what he has said that the very thought of apology is contrary to his background, I would offer an apology for having mentioned the word "arrogant." I recognise that this was a very complicated and legal point, and my hon. Friends and I feel that this Amendment has put the matter much more clearly, and that it is of benefit to the Bill.

Major P. Roberts: I should like point out, that when these arguments were put over in Committee and on Third Reading, showing the injustice of a man proved to be innocent being detrimentally treated, the first words of the Attorney-General were that "the Amendment is misconceived." It was this type of difficulty against which we were struggling all the time. I wish to stress again that when rights of individuals are being attacked and taken away by Act of Parliament, it is unfortunate that we on this side have to press for these rights through the House of Commons into another place, and that only at the last stage are the Government prepared to give way. Once again I would point out that a great deal of time could have been saved if the Attorney-General and others had acceded to this at an earlier stage.

Mr. Bowles: I feel that I must intervene, in view of the sotto voce remarks which have been passed, and the monotonous repetition of the argument that Amendments could have been made before the Bill reached another place, and that much time could have been saved. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) said that, in all his experience, he had not come across a Bill so much amended in another place. He drew attention to the 15 pages of Amendments. I have in mind a Bill, also a


Coal Bill, for which the right hon. gallant Gentleman was responsible.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am afraid that that argument is not relevant to the present Amendment.

Mr. Bowles: I was trying to point out that when the hon. and gallant Member for Ecclesall (Major P. Roberts) said how much time had been wasted by refusing to accept Amendments until the Bill reached another place—and that has been the basis of argument for the last one and a half hours—that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had 25 pages of Amendments to his own Bill in another place.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Some of us have been accused of legalistic verbiage. I am not certain why it is necessary to omit these particular words, in conjunction with the subsequent Amendment, in order to bring about a purpose which is common to both sides of the House. The words to be omitted are:
except as regards performance thereof due under the contract before the date of service of the notice.
As I understand the matter, these words were designed originally to give effect to the transfer of a contract during a period between the time of the notice and the time of the decision, and it seems to me that, even if we accept the subsequent Amendment, there would be some period during which a contract will, in fact, be "in the air." There will be a period during which it is not quite certain who is obliged to fulfil the contract—whether the colliery concerned or the Board. I would like to have some explanation from the Government as to why it is necessary to take out these words.

Mr. Shinwell: If I may reply, by leave of the House, I am advised that the words proposed to be omitted are not consistent with the second Amendment, and that is why it has been done.

CLAUSE 8.—(Vesting in the Board a right to use of certain property.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 2, leave out "as the case may be," and insert:
and to apply a registered design in the copyright in which such an interest appears to them so to fall.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment, and the two subsequent Amendments in line 34 and line 37 are consequential on the recommittal stage in the House of a new Clause relating to patents and designs.

CLAUSE II.—(Allocation of transferred interests to, compensation units and to districts, and determination of their status as respects coal industry value.)

Lords Amendment: In page 15, line 41, leave out from "and" to end of line 14, page 16, and insert:
in this section—

(a) the said practice by reference to which such a determination is to be made as to any transferred interest is referred to as ' the wages ascertainments practice';
(b) the expression ' activities relevant to district wages ascertainments ' means activities treated as comprised in the coal industry under the wages ascertainments practice.

(6) Notwithstanding that, in general, determinations under subsection (4) of this section are to be made as aforesaid by reference to the wages ascertainments practice, the subsequent provisions of this section shall apply in the cases therein mentioned.
(7) The fact that figures relating to a particular activity have been brought into computation under the wages ascertainments practice shall not trender it an activity relevant to district wages ascertainments under this section where the figures in question constituted an item known under the wages ascertainments practice as a fair transfer price or similar charge and the activity in question was one treated under that practice as excluded from the coal industry.
(8) Whatever the wages ascertainments practice has been.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is of some length. It was regarded as complicated in wording, and it has been altered accordingly.

CLAUSE 20.—(Recipients of compensation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 21, leave out from "charge" to the end of line 26.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a Government Amendment which is designed to avoid any possible prejudice to the rights of debenture holders to compensation, where, for example, they have a fixed charge in a colliery concern's freehold and leasehold premises, as debenture trustees. As a result of the Amendment, the compensation would go to such persons designated in Clause 20 (1), whose duty it will be to see that the rights of debenture holders are safeguarded. This is only a tightening up Clause, to make certain that persons entitled to receive compensation, receive it.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

CLAUSE 23.—(Restrictions on disposal of stock issued for compensation of companies.)

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 9, leave out "its business," and insert:
business of the company or of a subsidiary within the meaning of the First Schedule to this Act of the company.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a concession which we think will be acceptable to those concerned. There are certain other Amendments which follow. They are all designed to the same end. The intention is to enable a parent company holding nontransferable compensation stock to sell it in order to raise capital needed for the purposes of a subsidiary. This is a point that emerged in the course of the Debate on Committee stage. It is thought that, in the circumstances, it is desirable that this Amendment should be proposed, and I hope that it will be accepted

Mr. H. Macmillan: This, as I understand it, raises a point of very considerable importance, on this much debated Clause, as to the restrictions on the disposal of stock. I think that this concession may be of substantial importance in allowing operations, obviously for the general benefit of the nation, to take place, by enabling companies, not merely to sell their stock or to borrow on it—and in order to part with it they must be able to sell it—for their own operations, but also for those of a subsidiary company. This Clause, which has been considerably modified in the course of

this Bill, is, I think, pro Canto, made more acceptable by this additional increase of its scope. It is subject to getting the Treasury to agree, but to the extent that it is an enlargement of the scope, it does prove a benefit and reduces the restrictions, which might have a very ill effect, at a later stage, upon the general economy of the country.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: As both the Minister and my right hon. Friend have welcomed the words now moved, I think that it would be very churlish if I did not welcome them too, but for one thing. Both the Minister and my right hon. Friend used the word "concession." I would like to draw attention to the fact that both right hon. Gentlemen have, in fact, omitted the case that these words improve the actual Measure itself. If an improvement is going to be a concession, I am quite sure that the Minister would like to put on record that he does not regard an improvement as a concession, but as an improvement in itself.

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 16, at end, insert:
Provided that any illegality by virtue of this Subsection of a disposal of stock shall not in any way affect the title to that stock.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is to protect purchasers of Government stock who procure it on account of unauthorised disposal of such stock by a colliery company at an early stage. I will not call this a concession: I will say it is an improvement.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Does that mean that the purchaser of any such stock will have a good title to it whether it is sold with Treasury permission or not?

Mr. Shinwell: I should say offhand, yes. These provisions are very legalistic in character and will be subject to different interpretations, but on the face of it, I would say that the purchaser of Government stock would be protected, and, therefore, the title could not be questioned on account of any unauthorised disposal by a colliery company. If a colliery company disposed of the stock at an early stage, it would not prejudice the rights of the actual owner.

Mr. Macmillan: I ask this only because we are aware that this is a legal point, and at the moment we are deprived of our legal advisers who appear to be otherwise engaged. It seems to me on the face of it to be a rather new doctrine, and in the absence of our legal advisers I hesitate to press it. I thought, however, the doctrine was that a person could not pass op to anyone a better title to property than that person had, and if a person disposed of a title it was up to the purchaser to make sure that he had a right to sell it. I do not know whether this Amendment is going to affect that doctrine or not. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to make the Clause inoperative, he should have listened to the arguments presented from this side of the House in the course of the various Debates. This does seem to make rather nonsense of the controlling points of the Clause, and I would press for an answer to the question—If a colliery owner, being possessed of compensation stock, disposes of same, without obtaining the sanction of the Treasury, will the purchaser have a good title to it under this Amendment?

Mr. Shinwell: My answer is in the affirmative, and I think that explains the matter without the assistance of the legal advisers to whom reference has been made.

Mr. Macmillan: With the permission of the House, I would like to say if that is the answer it is a very bad system of legislation, because, first, we pass a Clause in which it is laid down that we are giving in compensation for property certain stock and attached to that stock is a rule that it may not be disposed of, may not be borrowed on, and may not be sold except under certain conditions clearly laid down in Clause 23 of the Bill. Then we come along and say, "It is quite all right if you do dispose of it, because nobody can do anything about it, and the person who gets it will have a good right to it and the Government will acknowledge the title." I cannot believe that that is a tidy way of legislating. I ask, if it is not too late, that it should be looked at again, because it does not seem to me, on the face of it, to be a normal method of legislation. Indeed, it is merely inciting people to break the conditions we have laid down. If Par-

liament wishes to lay down these conditions, it should make them enforceable.

Major Roberts: Is it the case that this is going to create a form of black market? As the law is, property to which there is not a good title can only be passed on in certain markets like those in the East End; certainly not in an open market. Without a proper title to property, it is difficult to dispose of it. I would ask this question—assuming one got hold of a man of straw, who did not mind going to prison for a short time, he got some of this stock against the regulations, and somebody bought that stock, are we then really letting that person who buys it get the title to it, without any trouble? It seems to me an extraordinary thing. The Minister has just said that the title will pass. The man of straw admittedly goes to prison, but possibly there are people who would not mind doing that, if given a certain amount of pecuniary advantage. It seems to open wide a most improper method by which stock can pass in a most back-handed way.

Captain Crookshank: This seems to be a difficult legal point and as has been said we have no law adviser present. Would it be possible to postpone further consideration of this Amendment and return to it when a Law Officer is present to give us his advice?

Mr. Shinwell: There is no need for the presence of the Law Officers on a matter of this sort. The paint is perfectly clear and I thought I made it clear. To a colliery concern, undertaking, company or whatever one likes to call it will be transferred stock to which it is entitled. In the first place, the stock is not transferred to the individual shareholder. That, of course, was made perfectly clear when we were discussing the financial Clauses in Committee. That is the first point I wish to make. However, it is conceivable that some illegality may occur in spite of the precautions taken, and however much the provisions and regulations are tightened up, there may be unauthorised disposal of stock by a colliery company. In those circumstances, some protection must be afforded to the actual owner of the property, the individual shareholder, and the intention, therefore, is to protect the person concerned and at the same time to protect the purchaser of Government stock. There must be a


balance created and there must be fairness on both sides. That is the intention, and I should have thought that this is a common commercial practice to which no one could take exception. This matter has been carefully looked at, and it was discussed in another place. It was dealt with fully by the Lord Chancellor, and I should imagine, having been accepted there, that no question could be raised. At any rate, the point is perfectly clear to us.

Major Roberts: May I ask one question? The right hon. Gentleman says that the shareholder should be protected. Assuming that the shareholder illegally got rid of his stock, why should he be protected? That is improper and why should protection be afforded for something which is improper?

Mr. Shinwell: We are protecting those concerned in these transactions. I thought we were affording a solatium to first recipients of Government stock in the first instance and also to the second recipients. Apparently hon. Members opposite do not regard this as any concession.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Mr. H. Macmillan rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman must remember that we are not in Committee but in the House. The right hon. Gentleman has already made some three speeches and so has the Minister, who has certain privileges in that respect. I do not think we can go on ad infinitum. We must come to a decision on this question.

Captain Crookshank: Could we adjourn further consideration of this Amendment, and take the other ones, and then come back to it in half an hour or so? Would it be in Order to make that proposal, particularly as the Minister said that it had been discussed in another place, and we cannot find any reference to it in the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid not. The matter has now been fully discussed, and I must now put the Question.

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 8, at end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Interim protection of persons having assets transferred against enforcement of liabilities.)

A.—(1),It on application made to it by any company or other person, the tribunal to be established for the purposes of this Section is satisfied—

(a) that the applicant is an owner of transferred interests and that those transferred interests formed a substantial part of the applicant's resources;
(b) that steps have been taken for the enforcement of a liability of the applicant to make a payment, or for the enforcement of a security upon property of the applicant, and that the taking of those steps is attributable to the passing of this Act or to matters arising in consequence thereof;
(c) that the applicant will be in a position, so far as can reasonably be foreseen, to meet his liabilities as they fall due, or, in the case of liabilities arising in connection with transfered interests, on satisfacton of a right of his to compensation attributable to those interests or to interim income; and
(d) that it will be for the benefit of the applicant and of the persons entitled to enforce liabilities of his, or to enforce securities upon his property, as a whole, that the enforcement thereof should be controlled;
the tribunal may direct that the applicant shall be entitled to protection under this Section.

(2) Whilst a direction under this Section is in force none of the rights or remedies for the exercise of which leave is required under Section one of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1943, shall be exercised against the applicant or his property (whether or not that Act remains in force for the time being), except with the leave of the appropriate court within the meaning of that Act.

(3) The tribunal may, at the time of giving a direction under this Section or thereafter at any time whilst the direction remains in force, specify, and from time to time vary or revoke, conditions subject to which the direction is to operate for the time being (including, without prejudice to the generality of this provision, conditions requiring, or prohibiting, or limiting the amount of, payments to any particular creditors or class of creditors, or, where the applicant is a company, prohibiting, or limiting the amount of, dividends to be paid by the company), and on breach of any such condition the direction shall cease to be in force.

(4) The tribunal may at any time revoke a direction under this Section, and any such direction not previously revoked shall cease to be in force at the expiration of six months from the date when the compensation for the transferred interests of the applicant is fully satisfied.

(5) The tribunal may, and shall if so required by the appropriate court, furnish for the assistance of that court on any application made to it for leave to exercise any of the rights or remedies mentioned in Subsection (2) of this Section a report of the tribunal's reasons for giving a direction under this Section or for the imposition of conditions under Subsection (3) of this Section and generally as to the circumstances relevant to the direction.

(6) Provision shall be made by regulations for the establishment of a tribunal for the purposes of this Section, having as its chairman a barrister or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing, and having included amongst the members thereof an accountant having the prescribed qualifications and a person having wide experience in commercial or financial matters, and the regulations may, without prejudice to the generality of this Subsection, include provision—

(a) for the charging of fees for meeting the cost of remuneration or allowances to members of the tribunal and its expenses."
(b) for regulating any matters relating to the practice and procedure of the tribunal, including provision as to parties and their representation;
(c) for awarding costs of proceedings before the tribunal, determining the amount thereof and the enforcement of awards thereof;
and, subject to the provisions of any such regulations, the tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure."

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This long Clause is inserted in order to redeem a promise that was made in the House on the Report stage. It is an interim measure, and does not affect ultimate rights of compensation. Members will recall that when we were discussing this matter there was some question of consulting responsible persons outside, with commercial and financial experience, as to the right procedure to be adopted. That has been done. This Clause, therefore, is the result of consultation with those financial experts. The desire is to prevent creditors, or companies, or trustees for debenture holders, from seeking to enforce their full rights on the ground that their interests were imperilled simply as the result of nationalisation, even although they would be duly paid the interest on the sinking fund which was due to them, and although their capital would be perfectly safe.
The Clause gives to a company which can satisfy a commercial tribunal that there is no reasonable doubt as to their solvency, interim protection against enforcement of the liabilities of the kind mentioned. I am advised that the proposed Clause has been well received in financial circles, and is regarded as a commonsense measure for dealing with inevitable difficulties immediately following nationalisation. It is not for me to quarrel with these financial experts. I

gave a promise that this would be done, now we have had those consultations, and it seems to me that we are bound to take the advice of people who are more knowledgeable on these subjects than many of us can pretend to be.

5.15 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) is not here, so I can safely say that I think it is desirable that this new Clause should be inserted in the Bill. I would, however, like to ask a question on the machinery of the Clause. In Subsection (2) there appear some very strange words:
Whilst a direction under this Section is in force none of the rights or remedies for the exercise of which leave is required under Section 1 of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1943, shall be exercised against the applicant or his property (whether or not that Act remains in force for the time being) …
If that Act has lapsed it seems queer to refer to it. The Minister takes power, very properly, in Subsection (6) to establish a tribunal. The Subsection states:
Provision shall be made by regulations … (a) for the charging of fees for meeting the cost of remuneration or allowances to members of the tribunal and its expenses.
That can only mean that no remuneration, no allowances, and none of the expenses of the tribunal can be raised, except as a result of fees. According to Clause 51 of the Bill, and the Money Resolution which governs it with regard to various expenses, the tribunal is not covered. So far as I can make out, the Minister has no power to pay any remuneration or allowances, except what he can get out of fees. That being so, he may get into a deadlock. The tribunal may be set up, certain expenses incurred, and if only one or two cases come before it, and the fees are nothing like adequate to cover expenses, what will the Minister do? He has no statutory power to do anything. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman can make an Amendment at this stage which would cover that point.
Once again, I would like to call attention to the words in Subsection (6, a), where it speaks of remuneration or allowances," and once more to ask the Government to give their draftsmen clear instructions as to remuneration and expenses. There was a good deal of talk about it on the Committee stage, in connection with the Board, and councils and


various other bodies which were to have allowances. The Minister cannot be aware of it, because he is much too busy to follow what is happening in other Measures, but if he will look at the Government Amendments to the Civil Aviation Bill, which we shall consider tomorrow on the Report stage, he will find one which says that remuneration means allowances. In that Bill, that is the meaning given to the word, "remuneration," but in this Bill we find there can be remuneration or allowances.
In the other Bill, "remuneration" means allowances. It is too stupid for words. I hope the Government draftsmen or the Treasury, as the coordinating Department, will take the matter in hand and clear up in all these Bills what is meant by remuneration, allowances, and expenses properly incurred in the discharge of the job. I would like to have an assurance from the Minister that he will be able to pay them if we pass this new Clause, which—I see the hon. Member for Nuneaton has returned to the Chamber—is one of which we approve, without necessarily committing ourselves to saying that it is good, or thanking another place for inserting it.

Mr. Shinwell: I speak again by leave of the House. As regards the first point raised by the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crook-shank), I am advised that this provision is common form, and has appeared in other Bills. The reference to the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act is intended only as an example in order to show that things of this kind must be taken into account. As regards the second point, the charging of fees, the tribunal is established for the purpose of protecting certain interests, and it is the usual procedure to raise fees from the persons concerned in order to provide for the expenses that are likely to be incurred. It may well be that there will be few cases coming before the tribunal, and if that is so the ordinary law of supply and demand will no doubt operate, and the fees will go up proportionately as the number of cases diminishes. I am advised—I can speak only as I am advised on these highly legalistic matters, about which I make no pretentions to knowledge—that this is quite common form, and as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has indicated his approval, perhaps he will now agree to the new Clause.

Captain Crookshank: Will the Minister give an assurance about getting the Government draftsmen to look into the drafting in regard to remuneration, allowances and expenses?

Mr. Shinwell: I have been very agreeable throughout the proceedings, but when it comes to asking the Government draftsmen to look at the drafting again, after they have looked at it so often and so many complications have emerged from a close study of these matters, I am rather afraid that any further inspection might lead to further complications.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I think the Minister has given us a very good explanation of the points raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank). Perhaps he was a little disingenuous in his remarks about the payment of the tribunal, because it is clear, to those who followed the Bill in Committee, what has happened. Under the Financial Resolution and Clause 51 it was arranged that the expenses should be paid out for these tribunals. Since then, in the last stage of the Bill, a new tribunal has been thought of. Had it been thought of before, it would have been included in the Financial Resolution and Clause 51 as one of the objects for which the Minister was empowered to pay out public money. Coming in at the end of the race, it does not take its place among the tribunals or operations for which the Minister is empowered to raise money. Therefore, it has to take potluck and to live on fees. It is like Bardell v. Pickwick; it will get the fees out of Pickwick. That is the position. If it had been thought of before, it would have been put into the Financial Resolution and Clause 51.

CLAUSE 24.—(Adjustments as between classes of debenture and shareholders of companies entitled to compensa tion.)

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 32, at end, insert:
(3) Subsection (6) of the last preceding section shall have effect in relation to the tribunal to be established for the purposes of this section.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is really consequential on what has gone before.

Captain Crookshank: It is not so much consequential as an example of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Macmillan) has just said. At the last moment, it was realised that, in regard to the tribunal under this Clause, which is not necessarily the same as the tribunal under the new Clause which has just been inserted, no provision was made for fees, expenses, or anything else. At the last moment, having produced those provisions for the other tribunal, there has to be this reference bringing them forward for the purposes of the tribunal under Clause 24. It is not a consequential Amendment, but another case of forgetfulness.

Mr. Charles Williams: The Minister says that the Amendment is consequential, and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) says it is not consequential. Surely, in a dispute of this sort, it ought not to be very difficult to find out whether or not it is consequential. In listening to the Minister, it has struck me that he has endeavoured in every way to help us to understand the Bill. Can he tell us precisely upon what this Amendment is consequential? I do not doubt his word or the word of my right hon. and gallant Friend, but when we have these two great authorities on the Bill differing, I think we are entitled to have from the Minister a brief explanation upon what the Amendment is consequential, I see that the right hon. Gentleman is smiling at me in a kindly way, so I hope he will give us that explanation. It is not fair to the House to get up and say that the Amendment is consequential, simply because the right hon. Gentleman does not happen to know upon what it is consequential. I think that very likely he does know, but I would like to know as well.

Mr. Shinwell: With the leave of the House, I beg the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) not to follow me, but to follow his own leader, who says this is a matter of forgetfulness. I said it was consequential. I suggest that the hon. Member follow his own leader, and that we leave the matter at that.

CLAUSE 28.—(Reserve fund of the Board.)

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 35, leave out from "fund" to the end of the Clause, and insert:
(2) The management of the said fund, tho sums to be carried from time to time to the credit thereof, and the application thereof, shall be as the Board may determine:
Provided that—

(a) no part of the said fund shall be applied otherwise than for purposes of the Board; and
(b) the power of the Minister to give directions to the Board shall extend to the giving to them, with the approval of the Treasury, of directions as to any matter relating to the establishment or management of the said fund, the carrying of sums to the credit thereof, or the application thereof, notwithstanding that the directions may be of a specific character."

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a rather more substantial matter. When we discussed the Reserve Fund during the Committee stage, there was a question whether it would hamper the operations of the Board if the prerogative as to the disposal of the Reserve Fund was left in the hands of the Government. This matter emerged in another place, and as a result of a Debate that took place there—I am certain there was a Debate on this issue in another place—it was decided to amend the Clause. There are two Amendments bearing on the same point. They are designed to alter the provisions with regard to the Reserve Fund of the Board and the application of the surplus revenues of the Board. The differences are essentially differences of emphasis. That must be clearly borne in mind. The Amendments make it clear that the initiative in these matters rests with the Board, whereas under the original Clause it rested with the Government. That is the simple issue. As regards the subsequent Amendment—in page 32, line 1—it gives the Board power to deal with their Reserve Fund subject to the right of the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, to give them specific directions thereon, and subject also to no part of the Fund being applied otherwise than for the purposes of the Board. I never did believe that the original provision would hamper the Board in any of its activities, but as there were hon. Members who thought otherwise, the matter has, on reconsideration,


been adjusted, and I should imagine that the Board, in this form, will be able to create its Reserve Fund and dispose of it without any undue interference by the Government. At any rate, that is the intention, and I think the words fit the intention.

5.30 p.m.

Colonel Lancaster: I should like to interpose in this discussion for a moment or two and say that we welcome this Amendment to Clause 28. It is a matter which received considerable attention upstairs when several hon. Members on this side, with longer experience than myself, pointed out to the Minister how dangerous it was to leave matters of this kind to the discretion of the Government and that frequently in the past, notably in the case of the Post Office, reserve funds have been raised and appropriated for purposes other than those for which they were intended. I am a little concerned about the actual wording of this Amendment; it introduces yet another function for the Board by virtue of the words "purposes of the Board." We have become familiar with the duties, functions, powers and policy of the Board; they now have a purpose. It is not quite clear what is that purpose but I believe that in another place it was referred to as "activities" and the Lord Chancellor said that throughout this Bill the word "activities" meant the business operations of the Board. In this case, I wonder if it would not be better to introduce the word "activities" rather than this somewhat general term "purposes," which must be very wide and which has no explanation in the Bill itself. It is a small point but it seems to me that it might bring about some improvement and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman may be prepared to consider it.

Sir A. Gridley: As I understand the position, the Minister will still have power to give directions to the Board, but he is to some extent controlled by the Treasury. I should like to know the Minister's intention, because he will, of course, have a great deal of influence with the Board. We are not dealing with an ordinary kind of business undertaking but with a wasting asset for which considerable sums of the taxpayers' money will have been paid or pledged. Is it the intention of the Minister to see that a reserve fund is created, one of the objects of which will be to

provide for the writing off of the assets as is done in a normal business undertaking? Perhaps the Minister would enlighten the House on that point?

Mr. Shinwell: With regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster), I imagine that it is a minor point whether we use the word "purposes" or "activities," and it is quite clear what is meant. I would not care at this stage to introduce any further changes. In reply to the hon. Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley), it is, of course, clear that the Board will be an ordinary commercial undertaking and must conform to the ordinary commercial practices. In the creation of a reserve fund the Board will obviously have the initiative and they will naturally deal with the reserve in accordance with the state of the undertaking, their general needs and the obligations that are imposed upon them. As Minister I should not care to direct the Board unnecessarily in a matter of that kind; I have sufficient faith in the business qualities of the gentlemen who are to serve on the Board not to indulge in unnecessary interference, and certainly not in petty interference. We must leave it to them and, as the hon. Member is aware, there is provision in the Bill to enable us to examine the position when the annual accounts are submitted to the House if we think the reserves are not being properly disposed of or used to the best advantage.

Captain Crookshank: This is a very agreeable change to us on this side of the House. It was one of the chief battle grounds throughout the Bill, although one might not think so from the rather subdued way in which the Minister has referred to it, and I want to congratulate him on having seen wisdom at last and on the fact that the arguments we put forward have been accepted. Let there be no mistake—this is a completely revolutionary change in the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman made and got through this House. Originally, while the Board were to establish a fund, this was to be managed in such way as the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, might direct, and indeed the moneys put into the Reserve Fund could only be such, and at such times as the Minister might direct. Now it is entirely the other way round. The Minister is not the deciding factor at all, and the Board are to decide what is to be put to the credit of the Reserve Fund. This


is a very different proposition. First of all, the Minister was going to direct the Board; now the Board are to be free to do as they wish, with the one proviso that the Minister can give them certain directions—but only within the purposes for which the Board exist.
As far as I can see, that does, in terms, make it impossible, short of amending legislation, for any outside raiders to put their fingers on these funds. It does not take away the temptation but makes it impossible once and for all for the Minister or the Treasury to divert any of these sums for other purposes than those of the Board. It is just as well that that should be underlined because the Minister will no doubt want in due course to have it underlined. There may be predatory bodies about some time or another and it should be clear in the Bill, as it now is, that it rests primarily with the Board to deal with their own reserves as they think fit and that no part of the money may be used except for the purposes of the Board. It is a complete change and an improvement upon anything which we were able to secure in this house. I do not think for one moment that the Minister will be sorry that he has accepted this. He said on many occasions that he did not want to interfere too much with the activities of the Board, and a moment ago he told us that in his view the Board is to be a great commercial undertaking. Be that as it may, the further temptation is removed from the Minister the better and temptation is being removed by these words. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree with the Minister's Motion and approve this Amendment.

Mr. C. Williams: As a Back Bencher who has not taken part in this battle very much so far, I should like to congratulate the Minister on one phrase which he used in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley). He made a very important statement when he said that in the management of these mines the Board were to conform to commercial practices. That is a very important matter as far as the mines are concerned because up to the present they have been run in accordance with commercial practices and not State practices. That is a very important difference, as I am sure the Minister knows, and I con-

gratulate him most sincerely on the fact that he used that phrase.

Mr. Shinwell: I forgot to use the word "best" commercial practices.

Mr. Williams: That removes it right into the area of pure private enterprise, and away from nationalisation of any sort, and I am grateful to the Minister for having enabled me to emphasise the value of his explanation. I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman left out the word "better", but perhaps we have emphasised it better by leaving it as it is. It is of vital importance, not only to the House but to the country as a whole, that when we are running these mines it should not be possible for some Chancellor of the Exchequer to come down and badger and bully any Minister of Mines and get into this Fund in some way. I am very glad the Minister has seen his way to introduce this Amendment into the Bill. I do not quite know how this came about but I conclude that it is consequential on some wisdom that the Minister has found in another place.
Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 42, after "year," insert "of the Board."

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move "That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. H. Macmillan: No doubt this is a drafting Amendment but I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could answer a question for me on one point. I can see that it is necessary to have such an Amendment because, when the Board begins to operate, its financial year will be from the vesting date, whenever that takes place. The year may, therefore, start in September, or October or not even till January of next year Would it not be more convenient, if, as soon as possible, the financial year of the Board were made the same as the financial year of the nation? That could easily be done by running the first period for 18 months or whatever it might be, and afterwards making the Board's financial year conform to our own financial year. That is common practice. It would result in the financial year of the Board being the same as the April to April financial year of the nation. That would be good for Parliament, the Board and the nation.

Mr. Shinwell: I take note of the point.

Major Roberts: It would be very useful also if the vesting date could be so arranged as to fall at a convenient date, say, in September. As far as I can see, it will not come until next June

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Member is getting very near the bone now.

CLAUSE 30.—(Board's accounts and audit thereof.)

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 7, at end, insert:
being a form which shall distinguish the colliery activities and each of the main ancillary activities of the Board.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after "which", to insert:
shall conform with the best commercial standards, and which.
There was a good deal of discussion about the form of the Board's accounts. My Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor moved his Amendment in another place and indicated that it was possible for words to be inserted to the effect embodied in the Amendment which I have moved. This is undoubtedly an improvement. I say with confidence that throughout our discussion on the Financial Clauses of the Bill I made it abundantly clear, beyond all possibility of doubt that the accounts must conform to the best commercial standards. I insisted upon that all the way through, and I still insist upon it. The National Coal Board must prepare its accounts and present them, and conduct its transactions, in accordance with the highest standards.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Jennings: I am glad that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) is in his place. I am going to change from votes of confidence in the Minister and thanks to the Minister. I am going to say that in regard to this Clause he really deserves a vote of censure for not having come to this position before now. The matter was raised in the Committee, where we pressed our fight very hard. The words now on the Paper will at least let the taxpayer know, in a simple and clear form, how the activities of the Coal Board are going on. The Minister has

explained that it was his intention to give the fullest accounts but that was not sufficient. The accounts which were to be given were such as he might direct. It is all very well for him to say that he intended to give the fullest information. The words in the Amendment will now let the taxpayer see in a separate form what the coal activities are, apart from ancillary activities, and how this great adventure is getting on. The Minister is very late in the day in, coming to the decision to improve these words. I wish to goodness he had accepted something of this nature in Committee. Then I would not have to say that a vote of censure should be passed on him.

Mr. Stephen: Will there be a definition of "the best commercial standards"? I am in great doubt as to the exact meaning of the expression. There was some similar division of opinion on a previous Amendment. I wonder whether the Minister would let us have some small explanation. Are these few words being put in in order to please Members of the Opposition above the Gangway? As a lawyer I ask him to look at these words to ensure that they will not be a matter of controversy in the future and lead to the scheme being badly treated in the courts. While the Minister may be well advised to try to conciliate hon. Members Opposite him as much as possible, he ought to make sure that he is adequately protecting the nationalised industry from interference in the courts afterwards, as that might be very harmful.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The Minister is once more skating very lightly over the whole question, and representing it as one of comparatively minor importance, hardly worth occupying so much of the attention of the Committee, of this House, or of another place. While I quite sympathise with his desire to play clown the concession which either he or the Government have willingly or unwillingly made, it is my duty to point out the importance of two points which are now under discussion. They really are two separate points. The Amendment carried in another place is one, and the proposed Amendment to it moved by the Minister is another. It might be more convenient if we discussed them together—although one should keep strictly now to the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
The Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment is due to a misapprehension. The Lord Chancellor forgot to include these words on the Third Reading. It had been agreed that these words should be introduced, but by some oversight they were not introduced. What this House is doing is making an Amendment which will be agreeable, as we know beforehand, to the other place because it is merely by an oversight that it was not introduced here. The words introduce an important and substantial point—that the character of the accounts shall be in accordance with what is well known as the best commercial practice; but perhaps the other part of the Amendment, to which the right hon. Gentleman made no allusion, is even more important. While I agree with the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) that this phrase is rather vague and is difficult of precise interpretation, the other part of the Amendment, which is more important, is very precise. It says:
… which shall distinguish the colliery activities and each of the main ancillary activities of the Board.
There is no confusion as to what that means, and it is on that issue that we spent hours and hours in Committee, on Report, and right through to the final stage, an Amendment being moved on the Third Reading of the Bill in another place. As originally drafted the Bill said:
The Board shall keep proper accounts … in such a form as the Minister may direct.
It is true that the Minister told us, as he has repeated today, that it was his intention to give certain instructions on certain lines, but, as Members have said, it is better to have a statutory bird in the hand than many non-statutory promises in the bush. This is just the kind of thing on which Parliament should give precise directions. It is obviously agreed that if would be impossible to make any clear distinction between the operations of the Board as a whole unless there was this precise distinction between the main colliery activities and the main ancillary activities. Though this has been done late, it is nevertheless very welcome. It is a point of vital substance. The proper keeping of the accounts was one of the main arguments of ours throughout the Bill, and we received nothing but vituperation from the

other side, and were told that our arguments were foolish and unnecessary. It is a source of great satisfaction to us to underline what the Minister has quite naturally thought right not to emphasise—the vital and important change effected by this Amendment.

Colonel Lancaster: I should like to reinforce what the right hon. Gentleman has said in regard to this Amendment, and in particular to point out that it confers a benefit not only on the country as a whole and those of us who want to concern ourselves in the future with the activities of the Coal Board and the Minister's Department, but also on all those who will be actively concerned in the management of the undertakings. Something more than mere segregation of the activities of the coal, as distinct from the ancillary, undertakings can be read in these words. What is implicit is that these accounts must be kept in such a form that not only the results of regions and areas can be clearly seen but that the element of competition, so far as it can be maintained, is maintained within the industry.
It is said that nationalisation confers nearly every known benefit, but it falls down in regard to the matter of competition. However much we may deprecate the matter of finance coming into this great industry, nevertheless, financial results have been a yardstick by which all sorts of effects have been gained. It has by no means always been an un-satisfactory yardstick. In the past a great deal of interest has been taken not only by the management but by the men themselves in the results obtained in their own pits, seams and districts, and the yardstick was most frequently that of financial results. Other factors came into the matter but the final yardstick was that of financial result. If in the future we can maintain something of the same yardstick by which the element of competition can be kept alive so that managements and men take a pride in their efforts and their results, it will be all for the good. The moment we do anything to reduce that effect, we are compromising the industry. We want to maintain healthy competition in its best form. I suggest to the Minister—we have his sympathy in this matter—that if he can be insistent that these accounts are broken down not only as between ancillary acti-


vities and coal activities but into such a form that the regions, districts, areas, pits and seams are kept separate and the men can see the results, he will be doing something for the benefit of the industry and of himself.

Sir A. Gridley: I am glad that the Minister is proposing to amend the Lords Amendment and insert the very important words which are perhaps not fully appreciated by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). I think the Minister has in mind in the words "best commercial practice" that he will probably discover that some of the undertakings which he takes over have been accustomed to keeping their accounts and records in accordance with best commercial practice whereas there may be others which have not been quite so up to date——

Mr. William Paling: The majority, I should think.

Sir A. Gridley: —and should be brought up to the best commercial practice. Although I do not see on the benches opposite many of the Members who served on the Standing Committee, it is not without advantage to hon. Members opposite—we sometimes learn from them—to discover that what we advocated in Committee and what was at that time refused to us, has now been conceded to us because of second thoughts and the fact that wiser counsels have prevailed. It is to the advantage of the Bill and of this nationalised industry in the future that we should have regularly what the Prime Minister has frequently told us it is our right to have—the fullest information, on whatever matters may come before us for consideration. I hope that in this case we shall be able to look forward to receiving the fullest information as to how this industry is being carried on, successfully or unsuccessfully—something which we could not have been sure of getting if it were left entirely in the hands of the Minister to prescribe what form of accounts should be kept—whether on a national scale, a regional scale, or a unit basis, which I hope will be the case. We have now something of material advantage to the House, to the Bill and the future of the industry.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: It is reasonable that hon. Members should ask that the accounts of the National Coal Board should be sub-

ject to the most careful scrutiny. That, of course, was my intention from the outset. Frankly, I thought the form of words which appeared in the original Bill were quite sufficient for the purpose. It will be recalled that provision was made so that the Board should prepare and publish proper accounts. Of course, there may be varying interpretations as to what is meant by "proper," just as there are varying interpretations as to what is meant by "the best commercial standards." It is true that many colliery undertakings in the past conformed to the best commercial standards as they understood them, but there is one thing they did not do, and it is precisely what hon. Gentlemen are now asking should be done. The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) goes further; he is not satisfied with the words of the Amendment, which are that the accounts shall be presented in a form:
which shall distinguish the colliery activities and each of the main ancillary activities of the Board.
He wants accounts for each pit; I am not sure that he did not ask for accounts for each seam. If I may say so—I confess to a poverty of language on this matter—he is going too far. It is amazing that he should have made such a demand What do the colliery undertakings do now, and what have they done in the past? They may conform to the best commercial standards, but they never publish separate accounts which distinguish the colliery activities from the main ancillary activities. For example, if a colliery undertaking owned, in addition to collieries, coke ovens, they did not, in the publication of their accounts, distinguish as between those activities. We are proposing that there should be such differentiation. That is going a long way, and I hope it will satisfy hon. Members. At the same time, I am bound to say that it is very difficult to give a definition of what is meant by "the best commercial standards." All that I can say is this: The National Coal Board will do its best to promote the best commercial standards on the highest possible level, and I hope that will be an example to private enterprise throughout the country.
There is only one further point I want to make. I have been tempted quite a lot this afternoon but I have imposed a very severe restraint upon myself. It has all been bottled up, perhaps for a future


occasion, but I must say that I was staggered—not to put too fine a point upon it—when the right hon. Gentleman said that he and his friends had been assailed by vituperation. I thought it was all the other way round. When I reflect on the attacks that were made upon me during the Committee stage, I am bound to say that I think the boot is on the other font. However, perhaps the best thing we can do is to call it a draw, two goals each, and I am quite satisfied. If hon. Members opposite agree not only to the Amendment, but to the Amendment to the Amendment, so that we can have a composite Amendment which satisfies everyone, it is quite agreeable to me.

Colonel Lancaster: May I draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that I did not ask him to do more than he has already done in the way the accounts are to be presented? They bring the thing down to a basis of districts, and that is all I wanted.

Mr. C. Williams: A very interesting point was raised by a previous speaker below the gangway with regard to the definition of the words "conform with the best commercial standards." So far we have had two definitions of them. I hope that my Amendment, which is clearer and more definite, will be the one that stands. I would also like to say that I could not quite understand the Minister's last remark. Apparently there has been a certain amount of backbiting somewhere, but 1 am sure he will never accuse me of that. I want to say a few words on a vital point. It may be perfectly true that in the past certain colliery undertakings have not given separate accounts of their ancillary undertakings, but that is all the more reason why we should congratulate the Minister on having it done now, because it is a matter of great interest to the public. I think it is a pity that the Minister is nearly always looking backwards because, when he looks forward, he is more helpful. Now he has been able to improve the Bill quite a bit thanks to his friends in another place or wherever it may be. I submit, however, that the real bulk of these improvements were made by the hon. Gentlemen round me sitting in Committee, but I congratulate the Minister most sincerely on accepting this Amendment because I feel sure that the public as a whole will be very

glad to see precisely what ancillary undertakings cost. Until the public do know something of the expense of running a colliery, it is difficult for them to know that they are getting a wasting asset as far as this industry is concerned. For that reason I would like, as a Back Bencher who has not taken part in any battle, to say that I welcome this quite progressive outlook which the Minister has suddenly adopted.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 36.—(Provisions as to super annuation, etc., rights.)

Lords Amendment: In page 35, line 9, after the second "the," insert "continuance."

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This, and several subsequent Amendments, deal with the benefits to employees of the National Coal Board, some of whom have been taken over from the existing colliery undertakings—it may be from the ancillary undertakings—and some who may be employed for the first time. They are also designed to safeguard the rights of pensioners.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Does that include the three Amendments at the top of page 8?

Mr. Shinwell: There are four Amendments, I think—the one I have moved to agree with and the following:

In line 12, after "deeds" insert "rules."

In line 13, leave out "under which they are regulated," and insert "made for the purposes thereof."

After the words last inserted, insert:
for the transfer in whole or in part or extinguishment of liabilities under any such existing schemes or arrangements.

In line 47, at the end, insert:
(3) Regulations made for the purposes of this Section may be made so as to have effect from a date earlier than that on which they are made.

Mr. H. Macmillan: May we discuss the first four together, Sir, or would you wish them to be put separately? I understand that these first four Amendments are all on the same point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I am agreeable.

Major Roberts: I would like to offer some remarks on the fourth Amendment. We have not had a great deal of information about this. At first sight, this seems to refer to retrospective regulations. In general, retrospective regulations are bad things, which should be watched very carefully and not allowed to go through without a certain amount of scrutiny. The Clause to which the Amendments refer is that concerning rights for pensions and gratuities. We fought this matter earlier in order to get the Clause into the Bill. I do not want to say anything which will detract from the benefits of the Clause. But, as far as I can see, the result of the Amendment will be that, where a man wishes a regulation to be made about a pension or gratuity, the Coal Board can say that they need not hurry in deciding how much to give, because it can be made retrospective and the man can get the payment at a future date. I do not want to say anything which would be unjust in respect of gratuities or pensions, but I fear that if we allow this retrospective legislation to go through it will have the opposite effect
I would like a further explanation from the Minister, or the Parliamentary Secretary—who has not spoken yet—that this is not in fact going to lead to delay. We have taken great trouble in getting the Clause into the Bill. I am afraid that if we allow retrospective legislation of this kind to be made, it will have the psychological effect of delay in bringing in the beneficiaries.

Mr. Macmillan: These Amendments, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister has said, are all designed to strengthen this Clause and to make it more effective for the protection of persons for whom it was designed. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Major Roberts) has observed, we welcome any strengthening of this Clause, more particularly because it was introduced in the Committee stage as a result of proposals and pressure from my hon. Friends and myself. It seems a strange thought that this great Bill to nationalise the coal industry and set up a complete monopoly, was introduced without any provision whatever, in regard to the superannuation benefit rights, of a satisfactory character. We had many discussions on this point.

The Clause now occupies the whole of page 37 of the Bill and is, on the whole, the best that can be done to safeguard the interests and rights of the employees under a Measure of this kind.
I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that retrospective legislation is generally a procedure to be deplored. It is not a very convenient procedure. On the other hand, it is for a good purpose here because it is in order to give benefits, and to support the claims of men who should be looked after, and to that extent my hon. Friends and I do not wish to disagree with it. I ask the Minister to make sure that because we can right a wrong by restrospective regulations delay will not be caused in getting on with the job. This Clause is a most vital one. It has been enormously improved in its whole character and, although we do not like the power to make retrospective regulations, we think it is good so long as it is used for the benefit of the people, and not as machinery for delay.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: The words should not go into the Clause at all. I do not think they are necessary. I am certain that the Clause as it stands puts the Minister into a position, when dealing with the question of transfer of liabilities of this kind, to make regulations covering the period prior to the date on which he makes them. No one is going to say that paragraph (a) of the Clause ties the Minister down to making this payment to those who are to get benefit on the day when he is making the regulation; he can make it for whatever day is necessary. The Amendment proposes that the Minister may do that, but the Minister may already do that, and I am certain that the words are unnecessary. They merely add to the size of the Bill, and do not provide anything of value. The Minister, under the Clause as it stands, has the power to make regulations from a date that will be just towards those who are entitled to get benefit, and to put in the proposed words when the Minister may already do that, is loading the Bill un necessarily.

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) may, of course, be right, but we must remove all doubts on this score. We could not incur the risk of the right of persons who must be protected in respect of rights to gratuities


being contested, and probably coming before the courts. It would be most unfair if we did not take every precaution to safeguard their interests. Therefore, we decided to insert these words.
The only remaining point is whether this will incur delay. I should not think so. For one thing, the Board must deal with the pensions schemes which are transferred from the colliery concerns to themselves. They must deal, if there is redundancy, with persons who leave their employment, or may have left their employment. There is no question of delay in that case. Persons concerned must be safeguarded, and would require some payment, some gratuity, or benefit, and they could not be left high and dry. Consequently, there would no question of delay. I understand that this is common form. It is by no means unusual, and it is intended that persons whom we all wish to safeguard should be in no doubt about their rights being preserved. I take it that that is the general intention, and, if that is so, we can accept the Amendment.

Mr. C. Williams: I am very glad that the Minister stood out against the insinuations of the Communist Party. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) suggested that the words were superfluous and so on, but this is a matter of superannuation of people engaged in this business. As a good Tory, I should strongly deprecate running any risk of not ensuring that these poeple should be compensated. I congratulate the Minister most sincerely on the courageous stand he has made in this matter. There may be amusement on the other side of the House, and sympathy with the hon. Member on his attack on the Minister. I personally sympathise with the Minister, not the hon. Gentleman. I feel sure that this is one of the occasions when an improvement is being made which is not adding to the length of the Bill. I dislike adding to the length of any Bill, but this is a matter which should be made more clear. I do not think I need add anything. I have given full warning that we now know what type of attack we may expect. We shall have to follow things very closely indeed.

Lords Amendment: In page 35, line 47, at end, insert:
(4) Liabilities (whether of obligation or under customary practice) in relation to pen-

sions, gratuities and other like benefits, of a kind subsisting under such existing schemes or arrangements as aforesaid in connection with the carrying on of any coal industry activities or transferred allied activities, shall be taken into account in the valuation of compensation units comprising transferred interests owned, or in things used, for such activities, and the amount referred to in subsection (4) of section thirteen of this Act which a compensation unit might have been expected to realise on the assumed sale therein referred to shall be estimated on the basis that the purchaser would be in the like position as the owner of the transferred interests comprised in the unit as respects such liabilities and as respects resort to any transferred funds held for the purposes of such existing schemes or arrangements.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This new Subsection makes perfectly clear the fact that the pensions liabilities of colliery businesses which will be transfered to the Board should be taken into account in the valuation of the assets for compensation purposes. I think it is quite implicit in the compensation Clauses of the Bill, because it is there laid down that the valuation shall be on the basis of market value on an assumed sale, which would clearly include the liability to pension payments on the part of the company. This Amendment makes it perfectly clear.

Colonel Lancaster: I would like to ask the Parliamentry Secretary to clarify this a little more. Do I understand that if a colliery undertaking has assumed this liability, there will be a deduction in compensation in respect of this liability? If that be the effect of this Amendment, surely it will be to the benefit of those who, for one reason or another, have not faced up to the obligation or desirability of introducing pensions schemes for their employees.

Major Roberts: I would like to take that point further. We here see a danger in the future, not necessarily to this industry, but to other industries which are threatened by nationalisation. It seems to me that colliery companies which have put into operation schemes for pensions for old age pensioners, etc., are to be penalised by this Amendment, in that they are to suffer a deduction from their compensation, whereas other, colliery companies which have not put such schemes


into operation will not have a deduction from their compensation. A number of schemes have been instituted in Yorkshire in the last seven or eight years to help the old people of the collieries. They have been appreciated by everybody concerned. Is it suggested that such a scheme is to be a liability on a colliery company in the future. If that is so, if the Coal Board is not to introduce compensation schemes of a general nature, I admit that that liability is a continuing one in the future, but what does the Minister say? He says quite definitely that the Coal Board is to introduce general gratuity and pension schemes throughout. Therefore, those small schemes of these particular collieries will be merged in the greater one. The Minister said:
If there are to be Regulations, as there now must be"—
that is, in regard to pensions—
No person should be excluded. … I think that position is comprehensive in character. There need be no fear that any person will be excluded from the provisions embodied in the Regulations when they are made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 2nd April. 1946; c. 701.]
If that is so, all the collieries and the people in them will come under some form of comprehensive scheme. To say that because, prior to the vesting date, some particular collieries have been forward looking, have been compassionate and have introduced these schemes they are to be penalised, does not mean that they are to be penalised to the advantage of the taxpayer. This money is not coming from the taxpayers' pocket. It will come out of the global figure already paid into the industry, and what the Government are doing by this Amendment is to penalise colliery companies which have schemes for their workpeople, and to benefit the other colliery companies which have no such schemes, because those companies will get more compensation.
I would draw the attention of both sides of the House as to what effect this type of provision will have in other industries which are under the threat of nationalisation. Take steel, coke ovens, transport, etc. People might say "why do we not set up a scheme for our work-people? It would be a good thing." The answer would at once be "No, you will be penalised by the Government when they take you over; people who do not set up such a scheme will get a corresponding benefit." That is the danger I

see. It is wrong that we should, from this House, encourage such a thing. It is wrong that any Government of any colour should try to stop the giving of pensions and benefits of this kind. I seriously suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if he can—it may be too late—he should bring in some order at a later stage which will put this matter right, and make quite clear to other industries which may be nationalised that they will not be penalised to the benefit, not of the taxpayer, but to the benefit of the more backward members of the same industry.

Mr. Gaitskell: I have a good deal of sympathy with the two previous speakers. I quite appreciate that this Subsection makes clearer the fact that a company which has had a pensions scheme will, in a sense, suffer by reason of that. But I repeat that this is really implicit already in the compensation proposals we had earlier. If the valuation is based on a willing buyer and a willing seller, and a willing buyer takes over the liabilities of the company to pay pensions, surely it is clear enough that in such a case the price would be adjusted accordingly.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Up or down?

Mr. Gaitskell: Down, of course.

Mr. Macmillan: Why?

Mr. Gaitskell: I say "of course," because it is a liability. May I put another point? It may be that the existence of the pensions scheme has led to relationships between the management and workers which have resulted in improved output and enhanced the good will of the undertaking. I think that is perfectly possible and, to that extent, it might have the effect of enhancing the value. Indeed, it is a point on the side of the Government. All we are doing is to make the position clear. It has to be taken into account. For my part, I cannot see that there is any serious criticism to be made on that point.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Macmillan: I venture to interrupt only because I do not want it to go on record in this House that the fact of having set up the most advanced form of compensation and pension scheme; progressive management should be held necessarily to depreciate the value of the property. It might well be that the valuers


would say, on the contrary, that it had been to the benefit of their undertaking as opposed to others. I thought it would be a pity if that possibility were not put upon the record. It is true that this Clause only makes clear what the lawyers tell us is implicit in the Bill as it stands. It is, alas, too late to do more than place on record the complication which is involved. In the first place, colliery companies, like all other industrial undertakings who had these pensions schemes, are now faced with the enormous problem of bringing them into line with the national pensions scheme. In the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman knows, they are given certain options. Many of these liabilities which were absolute are now only relevant in regard to the passage of the so-called Beveridge Bill. Certain rights of contracting out are given. All that will have to be taken into account because the whole structure of the National Insurance Bill impinges upon many questions in many industries.
As I understand it, there is no question of reducing the total compensation. That is fixed by the global figure. There is the rather paradoxical situation that unless it can be shown that they have increased their goodwill by virtue, those who have clone the least will gain some advantage in their slightly higher claim to compensation over those who have done the best from the social point of view That is an unfortunate thing. It is, as my hon. Friend says, doubly unfortunate. Not only is there the actual nationalisation of this industry but the threatened nationalisation of many industries in this period, and perhaps in other periods. What is the object of this legislation? Is it to prevent this during any period of the next 50 years while there may be a Socialist Party wanting to nationalise this or that industry? Is it to discourage employers from this forward movement? Is that their purpose? That would indeed be very serious. I think it would be worth while for the Government to look at this to see that we do not have this situation repeat itself because I think it is bad for the country and bad for the general progressive attitude towards modern industry.

Mr. Haworth: I, too, think there is point in the criticisms which have been made and that an in-

justice is being done. There is the possibility of injustice to the up-to-date employer under the system of compensation laid down in Clause 4. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to look at the matter from another angle. Would it not be possible to insert a form of words to penalise the employer who has not instituted pensions schemes which he ought to have arranged? If we are to try to get equity as between the up-to-date employer and the one who has not done his duty to his employees, I think inquiries should be made to see whether a form of words could be devised whereby the valuers could take into account the fact that these employers have not brought the industry up to date and that they have been saving money at the expense of their workpeople. That matter should be taken into account in the valuation, and less compensation should be paid to them. That would answer the criticism and it would avoid the injustice which may be done under this Clause. Rather than saving money for the good employer it would save money at the expense of the bad employer. I hope that would meet with the commendation of hon. Members opposite.

Question put, and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

CLAUSE 39.—(Provisions as to the Miners' Welfare Commission.)

Lords Amendment: In page 38, line 7, at end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE B.—(Power to vary trusts of property provided out of the Miners' Welfare Fund.)

"(1) Where trusts have been declared on which property representing an application of money standing to the credit of the Miners' Welfare Fund is to be held, and it appears to the Minister that purposes specified in Subsection (1) of Section twenty of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, would be better secured by a variation of the trusts, either as respects that property or as respects other property held on the same trusts or both, he may, subject to the provisions of this Section, make provision for that variation by an order made by him.

(2) The Minister shall not make an order under this Section as respects any property until he is satisfied that the substance of the proposed variation has been put before a meeting open to all persons for whose benefit in particular that property is held under the subsisting trusts and has been approved by a majority of such of those persons as were present at the meeting.

(3) Trusts as varied by an order under this Section may be varied by a subsequent order made thereunder.

(4) Subsection (4) of Section twenty-nine of the Settled Land Act, 1925 (which relates to the sending to the Charity Commissioners, for record, of assurances of land to charitable uses) shall apply to an order under this Section that relates to land, or to personal estate to be laid out in the purchase of land, as it applies to the instruments mentioned in that Subsection."

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a change of greater substance. The new Clause gives the Minister power to vary by Order the trusts of property provided from the Miners' Welfare Fund. Some of these, although there is no legal obligation to do so, have been entered as trusts of a charitable kind with some limiting terms. The purpose of the Clause frankly is to introduce a somewhat greater degree of flexibility in the use of trusts. For example, it might well be that it would be desirable to enable an additional group of workers to use a particular pithead bath which they were debarred from using under the terms of a particular trust. The Minister is able to introduce the greater flexibility by Order. I must emphasise that he is enabled to do that only if he has secured a majority opinion of the persons concerned. He cannot alter trusts at will. He has to see that those who are concerned are satisfied with the change. Subsection (4) of the Clause is a minor one providing that the appropriate records are to be sent to the Charity Commissioners.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: This seems to me to be a satisfactory Clause. It will save trouble and, I fancy, a certain amount of litigation. It seems to me to carry out the doctrine known to Chancery lawyers as cy pres. It will provide the machinery for varying these trusts because of the happening of an event which was not contemplated when the trusts were originally set up. The basis of the cy pres is to try to give effect to the original intentions of the donor as well as they can be gathered in the light of the new events which have occurred. In the present case, I am not certain whether that sort of consideration can apply. As I understand the matter, the whole of these trusts are funds standing to the credit of the Miners' Welfare Fund. I am not certain whether they are provided under the pro-

visions of the Statute referred to in the Clause, or whether it is possible that there have been advantages to these funds which may have been provided from some other source, in particular from individual donors who were anxious to benefit the miners. There is a certain tendency at present, perhaps, for the public view of the administration of charity to change.
We notice on the part of the Government a certain tendency to disregard the original intentions of donors, and to treat charitable funds in accordance with what they regard as the desirable ends of policy at the present time. I, personally, deplore that, and I think it must ultimately wholly defeat our ideas of charity and may have very serious long-range repercussions. I cannot, of course, enter into that on this Amendment, but, on the other hand, I want to be quite certain, before the House agrees to it, that, in fact, there is no implication that we are agreeing to vary trusts given for a particular purpose by particular individuals, but are merely varying the provisions of an earlier statute because circumstances make such variation absolutely essential.

CLAUSE 42.—(Winding-up of coal-selling schemes and of S. Yorks Mines Drainage Committee.)

Lords Amendment: In page 40, line 10, insert:

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Don caster Drainage District and certain dock, etc., undertakings.)

"(1) His Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision as appears to him to be requisite or expedient in consequence of the passing of this Act for—

(a) modifying or discharging rights conferred and obligations imposed by the Doncaster Area Drainage Act, 1929, or the Doncaster Area Drainage Act, 1933, on mineowners working or proposing to work minerals under any lands situated within the Doncaster Drainage District or on the Catchment Board of the River Ouse (Yorks) Catchment Area or the Catchment Board of the River Trent Catchment Area, or for substituting other rights and obligations in lieu of all or any of the rights and obligations so conferred and imposed;
(b) varying the constitutions of the said Catchment Boards.

(2) His Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision as appears to him to be requisite or expedient in consequence of the passing of this Act with respect to the Blyth


Harbour Commissioners, the Upper Mersey Navigation Commissioners, the Commissioners of the Port or Harbour of Newport and the Tyne Improvement Commission, and any other body carrying on a dock, harbour, canal or inland navigation undertaking under authorisation conferred by an Act or by an order or scheme made under, or confirmed by, an Act, being an Act, or an order or scheme, as the case may be, which provides for the representation on the body of the interests of persons of a class of which the Board are members.

(3) An Order in Council under either of the preceding Subsections may make provision for any incidental or supplementary matters for which it appears to His Majesty in Council to be requisite or expedient for the purposes of the Order to provide and for any requisite amendment or repeal (in the case of an Order under Subsection (1)) of any provision of the Doncaster Area Drainage Act, 1929, or the Doncaster Area Drainage Act, 1933, and (in the case of an Order under Subsection (2)) of any provision of any Act, order or scheme regulating the constitution of any such body as is mentioned in that Subsection.

(4) The draft of any Order in Council proposed to be made under Subsection (1) or (2) of this Section shall not be submitted to His Majesty until it has lain before each House of Parliament for a period of forty days, and if within that period either House of Parliament resolves that the draft be not submitted to His Majesty,' no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, but without prejudice to the laying before Parliament of a new draft.

In reckoning any such period of forty days as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

(5) An Order in Council under Subsection (1) or (2) of this Section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council thereunder."

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This new Clause, which is rather lengthy, deals with a comparatively minor point. My right hon. Friend was, of course, aware all the time that, under various local Acts of Parliament, the colliery companies were covered and had various rights. He did not, while the Bill was going through this House, consider that it was necessary to make special provisions. However, having taken further advice on this point, he has come to the conclusion that it is desirable that there should be a specific Clause enabling the Coal Board to take over, in effect., the obligations and rights of the

various colliery companies. That involves Amendments to various local Acts, and the substance of this Clause is to provide that those Amendments may be made by the Minister by Order in Council, subject, as usual, to the Negative Resolution procedure.

Mr. H. Macmillan: This is new to us. I have no doubt that the purpose of it is quite proper. I would like to know, however, what is meant by paragraph (b), which says:
varying the constitutions of the said Catchment Boards.
Does that give the Minister and the Coal Board rights which are not now inherent in the colliery economy? If the sole purpose of varying the constitution of the catchment boards is in order to enable the Coal Board to put its own representatives on the Boards, that I can understand, but it allows the Minister to do much more than that, and he can, by Order in Council, get rid of all the other members. The new Clause gives the Minister the right of "varying the said constitutions," not merely limiting him to replacing the nominees of the collieries by his nominees, and it might be that that would be very disagreeable to the Minister of Agriculture or to the local authorities. I want to make sure that we do not give him the right to do more than merely substitute his nominees for the nominees of the collieries taken over. The new Clause appears to me to be rather widely drawn.

Mr. Gaitskell: I will gladly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. It is not the intention to play about with the constitution of the catchment boards.

Mr. Macmillan: It may be that it is not the intention, but what does it mean? The Minister may make such variation as he likes in the constitution of the catchment boards. I think that is going a very long way, and I think the words ought to be "such variations as may be necessary as a result of taking over the collieries." We are not talking about intentions, but about the meaning of an Act of Parliament, and I rather wish that this had been kept closer to its purpose. If I am told that it does not give the Minister that right, I am, of course, quite happy.

CLAUSE 43.—(Duty of the Board as to establishment of machinery for settle ment of terms and conditions of employment, etc.)

Lords Amendment: In page 40, line 25, at beginning, insert:
the organisation and conduct of the operations in which such persons are employed and.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is consequential on an earlier Amendment.

Major Roberts: I do not feel that this is consequential. I think it is the second half of something, but certainly not consequential. What it says, in point of fact, is that consultation shall take place for particular purposes, and I feel that that is far more than consequential, and that it is even dangerous. I am frightened that it is flying a false flag. I have felt all along that merely to have consultations is, in itself, no safeguard whatsoever to the people whom this purports to safeguard. The consultations themselves may lead nowhere at all; they may be postponed or put off. I am disturbed that, by putting in these words, we shall be giving a very false impression, unless the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to give us some explanation, possibly to the miners' leaders and to the miners in the country, because it is no good putting in that consultations shall take place if, in point of fact, consultations are postponed or put up. We know there have been consultations with reference to a five-day week and that certain members of the mining community have pressed for it, as well as certain forward-looking managements. The Minister may not like it, but this is one concrete example of where consultations lead to very little. I am alarmed that these words will lead to a false state of complacency on the part of those people who are being attacked. One knows of the consultations which took place with Mr. Joseph Hall in South Yorkshire about Wentworth Woodhouse. [Laughter.] Nothing happened. and the steamroller of State——

Colonel Wigg: On a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member has referred to the five-day week and Wentworth Woodhouse, which have nothing to do with this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I think it was an illustration. I was listening to the argument carefully.

Major Roberts: I was referring to cooperation between the trade unions, the mine workers and the Coal Board. All this says is that consultation shall take place, and the instance which I am giving is one where consultations have taken place but where, nevertheless, the steamroller of nationalisation has pushed the people aside. Unless we can have some explanation, I think these words had better be left out.

Mr. Gaitskell: I must confess to astonishment at what the hon. and gallant Member has said. I understood the party opposite to be rather proud of this particular Amendment in the form in which it was moved to Clause 1. I think the right hon. Gentleman spoke in glowing terms of the noble Lord who had moved it in another place. It is, of course, a corollary to putting it into Clause 1, which we have already done. Perhaps I might remind the House exactly what it says:
The policy of the Board shall be directed to securing, consistently with the proper discharge of their duties under Sub-section (1) of this Section, the benefit of the practical knowledge and experience of such persons in the organisation and conduct of the operations in which they are employed.
That is perfectly satisfactory. What I would term the consultation Clause, I must add, was put in specifically at the suggestion of hon. Members opposite, who, I think, were rightly proud of having raised it in the House. Why, then, the hon. Member should object to consultation on this additional point, I cannot imagine.

CLAUSE 45.—(Transfer of liability for subsidence from colliery concerns to the Board.)

Lords Amendment: In page 40, line 43, at end, insert:
or
(c) to contribute, under section seventy-nine A of the provisions substituted by Part II of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act. 1923, for sections seventy-eight to eighty-five of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, towards expenses properly incurred by a railway company is making good damage so arising;

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is intended to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) on both the Committee and the Report stages and which my right hon. Friend undertook to look into. It transfers to the Board the liability of colliery concerns to contribute towards the cost incurred by railway companies for damage caused by mine workings.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I desire to thank the Government for having, at last, seen that an Amendment of this sort was necessary. It is a little astonishing that a matter which was first raised on the Committee stage and then on the Report stage should only make its appearance at the backing of the Government when we get the Amendments back from another place. All the same, in view of what has occurred, it makes it quite plain that the Government will not, for this purpose, be able to make light of the advantages of another place.

Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 4, at end, insert:
(2) The Board shall indemnify colliery concerns against expense reasonably incurred by them in disposing of claims in respect of such liabilities as are mentioned in the preceding Subsection but are not thereby rendered enforceable against the Board, being expense falling due for discharge on or after the primary vesting date:
Provided that provision may be made by regulations for rendering the right to indemnity under this Subsection subject to conditions as to the giving of notices of claims and the furnishing of information with respect thereto, the making of settlements, payments or admissions, the conduct and control of the defence in proceedings, subrogation, and such other matters as may be prescribed, and such conditions may extend to things done or omitted before the date on which the regulations are made.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment relates to the provision under which claims in respect of damage due to mining subsidence may be enforceable against the Board where the appearance of the damage occurs after the primary vesting date. While colliery concerns will meet claims for damage which occurs before the vesting date, the Amendment provides a new Subsection (2) of the Clause for the purpose of

indemnifying colliery Boards against expense incurred by them in disposing of claims where such expense falls due for discharge on or after the primary vesting date. The intention is to relieve the colliery concerns of expenses under this head from the primary vesting date onwards. This has been put in because it was thought desirable not to impose upon them unreasonable expenses in this connection.

CLAUSE 47.—(The Board not to be re quired to insure against workmen's compensation liabilities.)

Lords Amendment: In page 41, line 35, at end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE D.—(Documents of the Board to be public records.)

(1) Documents belonging to the Board shall be deemed, for the purposes of the Public Record Office Acts, 1838 to 1898, to be public records under the charge and superintendence of the Master of the Rolls.

(2) The power conferred on the Master of the Rolls by Section one of the Public Record Office Act, 1877, to make rules respecting the disposal of documents which are deposited in or can be removed to the Public Record Office, shall, in relation to documents belonging to the Board, be exercisable subject to the approval of the chairman of the Board in addition to that of the Treasury.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a very necessary Amendment and provides that documents belonging to the Board shall be public records.

Colonel Clarke: I understand from this Amendment that, from the vesting date, all documents in colliery offices will become the property of the Public Record Office. Such documents will consist of account books, ledgers and masses of similar books. They will also include many plans, old pictures and documents of that sort. Some will be quite valueless, but others may have a value. Most of us who have been in colliery offices, especially the old ones on the North-East coast, which have existed for a century or more, realise that there are a good many things of very considerable interest and historic value in them. Some may be taken away by the directors, if their wives allow them to do so, but others will remain when the offices are taken over, and there is a risk that they will be put on the


bonfire. It should be somebody's duty to go through such documents, and to sort the grain from the chaff. Anybody who has had any experience of trying to write industrial history, knows how we suffer from the fact that there are so few records. As time goes on, that lack of material will be felt more and more. During the next few months an opportunity may be missed of saving some of these documents, an opportunity which will never occur again.
Not long ago I was brought a manuscript hook which gave a list of all the colliery brigs on the coast at that time, together with their tonnages and where they were registered. I believe there are many other such documents to be found in colliery offices. I do not want to worry the Minister with this matter, but I would suggest that, perhaps, the Parliamentary Secretary who, I believe, has a record of scholarships on affinities which are famed for their respect of old things, history and the material of history, might give it his consideration.

Mr. Shinwell: I am very glad that the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) has raised the point. It may he that among the official records associated with the industry there are some very valuable documents which ought to be preserved. I have no doubt that the Board will take note of the observations he has made, and if we can assist in that direction we will certainly do so.

CLAUSE 50.—(Annual report of the Board.)

Lords Amendment: In page 42, line 28, at end, insert:
(2) The report for any year shall set out any direction given by the Minister to the Board during that year unless the Minister has notified to the Board his opinion that it is against the national interest so to do.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment makes it clear that the Board's annual report should contain any direction given by the Minister to the Board during a particular year unless the Minister has notified the Board that it is against the national interest so to do. Hon. Members will recall that we had a long Debate during the Committee stage on this matter. This Amendment clarifies the point, and should, I believe, be agreeable to everybody.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman has, once more, with becoming modesty and caution, passed by one of the great historic battlefields in this controversy. He said, in effect, "We had a few discussions on this matter in Committee, and this Amendment clarifies the situation." Those who had not followed more closely the details of this Bill would not have realised that this was one of the main subjects of dispute "upstairs, downstairs and in their Lordships' Chamber." It was resisted with the full force of the Minister's powerful oratory, and we were told that it would be very contrary to the public interest if a provision of this kind were insisted upon. Indeed, I understand that in another place there was a great argument about the kind of things which could not be disclosed—the declaration of war, the national interest, and so forth. Directions are often given by the Government of the day, or requests made to industry, whether nationalised or not, which, in periods of great public emergency, are naturally kept secret by all.
Therefore in welcoming this Amendment, which certainly enormously improves the Bill, I should like, once more, to place on record, and to draw the attention of the House to, the great change it makes. It now provides that where the Minister overrides the Board, and where he uses the power given under this Bill to give directions to the Board, unless he notifies that, for some special reason, it is contrary to the public interest—an opportunity which I know no Minister would make use of except for good reason—in every other case we shall get the whole story of the conflict, if it should exist, in the annual report of the Board. That is a very satisfactory provision, both to protect the Board and to protect the Minister, and, last of all, if it is allowed in modern times to consider the public at all, to protect the public whose servants we are supposed to be and who have the right to know what is being done by their servants, whether a nationalised Board or a Minister of Fuel, nominally in their name.

7.0 p.m.

Colonel Lancaster: It might be that the results of the industry were unsatisfactory by reason of mismanagement of the Board as a whole, or of some section of that Board, and the Minister might, by virtue of his powers, find it necessary


to make alterations to the policy, whatever it might be. If that did occur, would it be in the national interest that it should be made public subsequently, or would it be one of those matters which could be kept from our scrutiny and about which we should be left to guess?

Mr. Shinwell: That seems to me to be a hypothetical question. I prefer not to deal with hypotheses, but with facts when they emerge.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Assets to be trans ferred to the Board.)

Lords Amendment: In page 51, line 38, at end, insert:
(Curtilages and development sites.) 9. In cases in which an interest in fixed property vests in the Board, whether without option or by virtue of the exercise of an option, and the owner of that interest has also an interest in land used exclusively or mainly for coal industry or transferred allied activities for which that property is used, or an interest in land owned by him exclusively for the purpose of having land available for use for such activities or an extension thereof, the interest of that owner in that land.

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The position is that the land is subject to the option of either the owner or the Board, subject to arbitration. That is to say, it falls into either Part III or Part IV of the First Schedule. The Government have come to the conclusion, however, that there are some occasions when the land must go to the Board; for example, land which is used exclusively or mainly for colliery activities, or land which is owned exclusively for the purpose of having it available for development in connection with colliery activities. The Amendment proposes, in effect, to put those classes of land into Part I of the First Schedule, leaving all other types of land, as at present, in Part III of the First Schedule. In case there may be an objection on the part of hon. Members opposite that we are putting too much into Part I of the First Schedule, I might perhaps add that we are proposing to move something else from Part II into Part III, namely brickworks, in the succeeding Amendment, so that there will be something of a balance.

Question put, and agreed to.—[Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 52, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (a).

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
As I mentioned at the end of my remarks on the preceding Amendment, the effect of this Amendment is to transfer colliery owned brickworks, etc., from Part II to Part III of the First Schedule. Thus, they come in the categories where either party may opt, but subject to arbitration in the case of objection. This matter was discussed earlier, and it is a case in which the Government have had second thoughts and have agreed to what they were asked to do.

Colonel Clarke: I do not think we can pass without comment over this battle ground, over which for so many months the fight has raged backwards and forwards. I am glad that, in its final phase, the line is stabilised in the direction in which we wished to have it. The point has been debated on many occasions, and I do not wish to go over those arguments, but I would just say that we welcome this Amendment because we believe that it will be fair to all concerned, not only to the collieries who may or may not want to get rid of their brickworks, but to the Board who may or may not want to take them over. More flexibility in that way will make the position more satisfactory, and will make it a better Clause.

Lords Amendment: In page 52, line 20, after the second "wharves," insert "in"; after "and" insert "in."

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Colonel Clarke: I cannot let this Amendment pass without making one last attempt to ascertain what are "wharves not being canal wharves." The words are:
… in wharves not being canal wharves, private harbours and staithes.
On numerous occasions I have tried to find out what those words mean, and I now ask the Minister to clear the matter up, so that it will not go in the records of the House and in Statute law as one of those great mysteries which have never been solved.

Mr. Shinwell: The nature of the English language is such that sometimes we may be misled by nomenclature. What is a wharf? It is assumed that a wharf is a structure alongside a piece of water. That does not always follow. There can be a structure alongside a particular factory or railway siding which may be regarded as a wharf. I am no oracle, but it seems to me to be common sense that if at some time such a structure should be discovered adjacent to a siding, a factory, or to any concern formerly associated with a colliery undertaking which, in the opinion of the Board, can be described or construed as a wharf, within the meaning of the English language, as defined in any dictionary of a popular kind, then clearly advantage should be taken of those facts.
That is all there is in it. If the hon. and gallant Member persists, as indeed he persisted during the Committee stage, in demanding from me where this particular wharf is situate, I confess quite frankly, I do not know. I have asked the question myself several times, and I have ventured upon answers myself when none were forthcoming from other quarters. Since I have been pressed on the point I have given what I think is a reasonable answer, based, as it may be, on a hypothesis. Nevertheless it will have to suffice. I beg of the hon. and gallant Member at this stage to refrain from asking questions which present great difficulty.

Lords Amendment: In page 53, line 7, at end, insert:
18. Interests of colliery concerns and of Class A subsidiaries thereof in fixed and moveable property used for the purposes of the making of bricks, tiles or earthenware pipes, or other products manufactured from colliery debris or brick clay or earth or in connection with those purposes and interests of such concerns and subsidiaries in consumable or spare stores available for use for such activities as are mentioned in this paragraph.
Where an option is exercised for the vesting in the Board of an interest in property mentioned in this paragraph, the activities for which that property is used or that interest is owned shall be treated for the purposes of paragraphs 3 to 8 of this Schedule as if those activities had been colliery production activities.

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, "That this House, doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Major Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have your guidance on a point of Order here. From one part of the Schedule, brickworks have been taken, also debris, brick clay and earth, as the case may be. Am I entitled to ask why these particular products have been taken out of one Schedule, and why other items have not been taken out?

Mr. Shinwell: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be very much in Order in asking that question. I presume, Mr. Speaker, you would agree. There is, of course, an answer, and it is this. In the case of brickworks it was thought that if there was a brickworks which had formerly been associated with a colliery undertaking, but which was not regarded as an essential part of the colliery undertaking, it should be excluded from the old provision and inserted in the new provision. That has been done. In the case of coke ovens it is quite different. There is no doubt that coke ovens are an integral part of a colliery undertaking's activities. That is clear. Coke cannot be produced without coal. Bricks can be produced without having coal on the site. It is perfectly true one can have coke ovens and transport the coal to the location. However, generally speaking, and for the purposes we have in view, it will be admitted, and must be admitted, that coke ovens, apart from those associated with steel and iron undertakings, are an integral part of the colliery concerns. It is because of that that we have left coke ovens where they were. I know the hon. and gallant Member does not like it. I am well aware of his views on this matter. We have left them where they were, but we have undoubtedly made a concession in this case as regards the bricks.

Lords Amendment. In page 53, line 30, after "activities," insert:
of a kind specified by the Board in their notice exercising the option as being activities for which they intend to use that property, or, if the option is exercised by the owner activities of a kind.

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Perhaps I should say one or two words in explanation here. The present Bill provides that where property vests under option ancillary equipment shall also vest with it. Ancillary equipment in the case


of composite undertakings may have been used partly in connection with activities to be transferred to the Board, and partly in connection with activities which will remain with the owner. Therefore, this Amendment lays down the criterion in these cases that, where the Board exercises the option it takes over the equipment belonging to activities for which it intends to use the property. On the other hand, where the owner exercises the option he hands over equipment mainly in connection with the property he is handing over.

Lords Amendment: In page 53, line 48, at end, insert:
(7) References in this Schedule to any business or activities, and references in the definition therein of the expression "subsidiary'' to ownership of capital of a company, shall be construed as references to the business or activities as carried on immediately before the dates respectively mentioned in the preceding sub-paragraph, or to the ownership of the capital as held immediately before those Cates respectively, subject however to the provisions of the next succeeding paragraph

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and the next Amendment, in page 54, line 4, are designed to tighten up and improve the drafting of what is generally known as the "freezing provision," that is to say, Part V of the First Schedule. I think no special point arises on that.

Lords Amendment: In page 54, line 48, at end, insert:
interest does not include a mortgage estate or other interest held by way of security.''

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is designed to prevent the danger that compensation might be paid twice to a colliery company which held a mortgage on another company.

Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 45, at end, insert:
the expression 'mortgage estate' means the right of the creditor in a heritable security

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is necessary because provision must be made in connection with Scottish interests.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Transfer to the Board of rights and liabilities under contracts.)

Lords Amendment: in page 57, line 6, leave out from "contract" to end of line 10, and insert:
but subject to the following provisions, namely, that if the other party to the contract (or any of them if more than one) objects to the exclusion he may within the prescribed period from the date of the notification to him refer the matter to arbitration under this Act, and in that event the arbitrator shall determine whether and to what extent the exclusion is to be effective, and except, in accordance with the determination of an arbitrator on such a reference, the exclusion shall not extend to performance of the contract due thereunder before the notification.

Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This relates to Proviso (b) in Paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule, under which the operation of the Schedule may be excluded in spite of a particular contract by agreement between the Board and the colliery concern. The Amendment provides for the case whereby a third party if he objects to the contract, being excluded from the operation of the Schedule, may take the matter to arbitration.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to Selling Schemes under Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, and as to the South Yorkshire Mines Drainage Committee.)

Lords Amendment: In page 59, line 5, leave out from "substitution," to the end of the paragraph, and insert:
(a) for the reference in subsection (2) of the said section seven to the purposes mentioned in paragraph 1 of that Schedule, of a reference to the purposes of the selling scheme in question: and
(b) for references generally in those provisions to that Schedule, of references to this paragraph.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. H. Macmillan: This being the last Amendment on the Paper, I would like to say that it is a matter of some congratulation to us that in a very few hours we have done a power of good. If it was possible to improve this Bill—and it has not been very easy because it has so many faults—it has been enormously improved by the large number of important Amendments which have been made in another place, and by the concessions which have been so wisely made by the Government, yielding sometimes to force and sometimes to argument. To the extent that these Amendments have been carried, we are correspondingly pleased. We should also like, if I may be allowed to say so, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for the skill with which once more he has conducted this Measure, and if we leave it now it is with a certain regret, and even nostalgia, for the pleasant and happy times it has given us together.

Mr. Shinwell: I speak by your leave, Mr. Speaker, and the leave of the House, as we are still on this drafting Amendment. I really have not very much to say about the nature of the draft; I take it that the wording is agreeable to all sections of the House. In any event, it has emerged from another place, and apparently hon. Members on the other side have found favour in the eyes of the Lords and I presume all is well. The right hon. Gentleman has very kindly offered his congratulations to me on having reached the final stages of the Bill. I am bound to say that if we have succeeded in our task, it has been largely due to the cooperation we have received in all quarters of the House. We had some acerbity, some acrimony, some heightened controversy in the Committee, but that is for the good of the soul And besides, sometimes it is excellent tactics to engage in what might appear to be embittered controversy because, having done so, one finds that the Opposition is thereafter subdued, and that is to our advantage.
I understand that the right hon.. Gentleman is convinced that as a result of the efforts of hon. Members opposite the Bill has been substantially improved I will not quarrel with that view. It is very

desirable that in a democratic assembly all the members should make t contribution, not only in improving a Bill but in general legislative matters. That has been achieved, and I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and in particular to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), who is not present at the moment, but who, throughout our proceedings, has helped by his wit and his engaging manner to make the proceedings occasionally lively and certainly useful. There is only one other thing I want to say: I feel I cannot allow this Bill to pass from my hands without expressing my admiration of the work done by my Parliamentary Secretary and, in particular, by the civil servants in the Ministry of Fuel and Power, without whose cooperation and guidance we could not have succeeded

Mr. Gallacher: Mr. Gallacher rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will remember that we are on a drafting Amendment.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [Several with Special Entries].

BORROWING (CONTROL AND GUARANTEES) BILL

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendment in lieu of their Amendment disagreed to by this House.

Ordered: "That the Lords Amendment be now considered."—[Mr. Dalton.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Treasury control of borrowing, etc.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 8, at the end, insert:
where the aggregate of the amount of money borrowed under the transaction and of any other amounts so borrowed by the same person in the previous twelve months (including any period before the passing of this Act) exceeds ten thousand pounds.

7.25 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
When this Bill was last in play between the two Houses, it was suggested in


another place that there should be a limitation of five years on the operation of the Bill. To that we felt unable to agree. The Amendment which is now under consideration does not touch the period of the operation of the Bill at all; that is now admitted to be eternal. On the other hand, it does insert into the Bill itself a limit of £1,000 on the amount of borrowing which will be free of control. It permits up to a limit of £10,000, within which borrowing will be free of control in any particular 12 monthly period. This is to be read in conjunction with the draft Order in which a limit of £50,000 is inserted. This, therefore, comes well within that limit, and for my part, since it has been represented that otherwise this Bill would be used to prohibit the borrowing of sixpences, shillings and spare quids, in order to remove any such possibility from the field of the Statute itself and of the Order, I am quite prepared to put £10,000 into the Bill while retaining £50,000 in the Order, and also of course retaining the power to vary the £50,000 limit from time to time by Order, although as I have explained on previous occasions in the judgment of the Government £50,000 is about right. As the £10,000 limit falls well below this, it does not work against the scheme of control as laid down in the Order, but merely gives a lower level of assurance against interference with the borrowing of quite small sums in circumstances to which we could take no objection.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: We have had a great deal of discussion on this question of the amount of money on which the Bill itself could enforce control and the position which the Order would give, and I must confess that I have not fully understood what the Chancellor has said in that connection. Am I right in saying that the result of this concession of his is that he has brought down the amount nearer to the sixpences and odd quids that he mentioned, and that as a result the Bill will not enable control to be operative upon the smaller amounts between £50,000 and £10,000?

Mr. Dalton: In any given year, yes.

Mr. Pitman: I am not quite sure if it is so. The Order can stand at £50,000, thereby controlling amounts between £10,000 and £50,000. I should be very

grateful if the Chancellor would clear that point up, so that the House may really understand it. To my mind it is a little complicated, and I am not quite sure where I stand.

Mr. Gallacher: There is one thing that the House will understand, and that is that when' we get an Amendment from the other place it means that the Tories, having failed in the Committee, are using the last bastion in order to get their desires to come true. Those of us who have been sitting here all afternoon realise that. I only want to say this. While I would be prepared to oppose the Lords Amendment—any Amendment—I am not prepared to force the matter to a Division. It is my sincere and final word on this question: I know that the Lords who have presented this Amendment——

Mr. Speaker: We do not talk about "the Lords"; we talk about another place.

Mr. Gallacher: I know that that "other place" is a little boxlike arrangement, and I hope that one of these days when they are all gathered there, we will go round and put the lid on them.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: I did not expect that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) would be an enthusiastic supporter of this Amendment which has come down to us from another place. None the less, this Amendment, and others with which the House has been dealing this afternoon, have, I think, once again shown the great advantage that there is in having a revising Chamber. Not only can mistakes be remedied, but second thoughts can be given by the Government to matters to which, perhaps, they did not give sufficient attention on the first occasion. The hon. Member for West Fife did not have the advantage that I had of sitting through the Committee stage of this Bill, because he was not a Member of that particular Committee.

Mr. Gallacher: I sat through the Committee stage on the Coal Industry Nationalisation Bill, and I saw what happened here this afternoon.

Mr. Assheton: The hon. Gentleman has far greater knowledge of what happened on that Bill. When we were discussing this matter in the Committee stage on this


Bill, a very large number of reasons was put forward by the Solicitor-General why the Government could not accede to a request that the £50,000 which was in the Order should be written into the Bill. I pressed him, after he made that speech, to say what was the sum of money he considered was substantial. He said the Government did not wish to interfere with borrowing, except of substantial amounts, and I pressed him on that question. He did not, in fact, indicate to us then what it was. I asked if he would think £10,000 would be an appropriate sum? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in winding up the Debate, did not feel ready to give way. I think the House is being very wise indeed in accepting this Amendment. It would be ridiculous if we were to give to the Treasury power—I almost hope to have the hon. Member for West Fife with me in this argument—by Order to restrict the borrowing of any sum of money whatever, of 10s., or £1 or £5. I think that even the hon. Member for West Fife would agree with me there.

Mr. Gallacher: It would depend on who was the borrower.

Mr. Assheton: Exactly. But it would be quite impossible to put into the Bill all the limitations on the borrowers which the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife would like to put in. It was, therefore, obviously desirable that some sum should be put in, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer has come to the conclusion that £10,000, which was suggested in another place, is the appropriate sum, and we on this side of the House are grateful to him.

Mr. Blackburn: May I, with great respect, say that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen speaking for the Opposition might have been a little more generous in congratu-

lating the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon having accepted this Amendment from another place, and having this limitation of, £10,000 in the Bill? I have at all times agreed with the view that the right hon. Gentleman has put forward, that there is no value in trying to control borrowing when the aggregate amount in any one year is less than £10,000. I want, however, seriously, to offer one observation. Words which are uttered in this House, or outside, by distinguished gentlemen are echoed round the world. It is rather important that we should remember that. Not only the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), but, in some kind of pale imitation, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden), and even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) who has just spoken, are suggesting that the freedom of this country, the great traditional freedom of this country, is being impaired by the conduct of this Government. I raise this point only because it has been specifically alleged, not once, but on many occasions, in respect of this particular Bill. I do desire to make the point that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been extremely reasonable, and has been prepared to take what is a somewhat unwelcome course for anybody sitting on these benches, namely, to accept an Amendment from the Lords. I put this argument with all sincerity, that we should remember that magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom, and that this country has a proud record for moderation in Parliament, on both the Government and the Opposition Benches. We should be well advised to maintain that record for moderation. If we do not, may the consequences be on the heads of those responsible.

NAVY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1944

Resolutions reported:

1.Whereas it appears by the Navy Services Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1945 that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended, the total surpluses and deficits on Navy Votes for that year are as follows:



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses, namely:








Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 2–6 and 8–16)
—
38,389,741
3
9


Total Deficits, namely:








Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 1 and 7)
39,719,007
17
0





Excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure
773,250,879
6
5









812,969,887
4
2


Net Deficit (charged to the Vote of Credit)



£774,580,146
0
5

And whereas the Lords Commissioners al His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of surplus receipts realised under Votes 2 to 6 and 8 to 16 towards making good the deficit in receipts under Votes 1 and 7.


1." That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned."


[For details of Schedule see OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1946; Vol. 424, c. 2071–2.]


II. Whereas it appears by the Air Services Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March 1945 that, as shown in the Schedule hereunto appended the total surpluses and deficits on Air Votes for that year are as follows:



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses, namely:








Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Votes 2–11)



153,639,790
1
0


Total Deficits, namely








Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated receipts (Vote 1)
189,333,580
12
11





Excesses of actual over estimated gross expenditure
448,905,038
6
10









638,238,618
19
9


Net Deficit (charged to the Vote of Credit)



£484,598,828
18
9

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of surplus receipts realised under Votes 2 to 11 towards making good the deficit in receipts under Vote 1.


2. "That the application of such surpluses be sanctioned."


[For details of Schedule, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1946: Vol. 424, c. 2073–4.]


Resolutions agreed to.

SUPPLY 2nd July

Resolution reported:


1."That a sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty to make good an excess on the grants for Army Services for the year ended on the 31st day of March 1945.


[For details of Schedule, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1946: Vol. 424, c. 2067–8.]


Resolution agreed to.

BISCUITS (CHARGES) ORDER

Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [25th June]
That the Biscuits (Charges) (Amendment) Order, 1946, dated 20th May, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 726), made by the Treasury under

Section 2 of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, and Section 5 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, a copy of which Order was presented on 23rd May, be approved."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

read, and discharged.

FOOD (POINTS RATIONING) ORDER

10.25 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move,
That the Order, dated 18th June, 1946, amending the Food (Points Rationing) Order, 1945 (S.R. &amp; 0., 1946, No. 866), a copy of which amending Order was presented on 24th June, be annulled.
I do so in order to call attention to the complications of this Order. As the explanatory note states, the Order itself deals with the fixing of points values for imported potted meats and other foodstuffs, and it substitutes a certain description for another. As I am not proposing to discuss the merits of the Order tonight, I shall not deal further with its effects. I want to deal with its intelligibility, because this Order is the 13th amending Order to the principal Order, which was No. 891 of 1945. Altogether there were six amending Orders in 1945, and this is the seventh in 1946. I submit that it is intolerable that anyone who desires to understand the effect of this Order should have to work backwards through no less than 13 Orders, and then back to the principal Order, before being sure of the implications of this Order.
I am all the more inclined to move this Motion in protest against the large number of amending Orders because of the observations made by the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, in a previous Debate,

when I moved to annul Order No. 733. This is the second amending Order we have had since then. When I made a rather similar complaint then, the line taken by the hon. Lady can best be indicated by a quotation. I put this question to her:
Surely the ordinary purchasing members of the public are entitled to understand these Orders as well as the traders?
to which she replied:
I would remind the hon, Member that the traders are the people chiefly concerned. The housewife does not go to the Stationery Office to get one of these Orders when she wants to find out—"[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 2298.]

Mr. Speaker: We cannot revive a Debate on a question on which the House has come to a decision this Session. I must rule that to be out of Order

Sir J. Mellor: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, Order No. 733 was not annulled. I am moving that Order 866 shall be annulled, and I submit that the question is entirely different.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can deal with Order No. 866, but he cannot now deal with Order No. 733

Sir J. Mellor: I was not referring to it, except for the purpose of quoting what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food said on that occasion. It indicated the attitude of the Ministry towards the very question which I am


now raising. If I may continue with what the hon. Lady said to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Mr. Speaker: It is completely out of Order to quote or debate a separate subject. The hon. Baronet cannot quote the Debate on a previous Order. He can deal only with the Order which is the subject of this Motion.

Sir J. Mellor: Then I must approach the matter along a different line. The attitude of the Government on all occasions when we have objected to an Order has been that it does not really matter, because the people mainly concerned receive the information through their trade journals and so far as the customer is concerned, he can get his information from the tradesman. I submit that that is an entirely improper attitude. All these Orders create offences. If anyone commits an offence against any one of these Orders, he is, under these overriding powers, liable certainly to a fine and often to prison. None of these people ought to be placed in jeopardy by the operation of one of these Orders unless those Orders can be clearly understood. We in this House ought to be able clearly to understand all we are asked to pass. It is provided that these Orders shall lie on the Table for a period of 40 days, during which any hon. Member of this House has the right to move their annulment. The purpose of allowing these Orders to lie on the Table——

Mr. Speaker: The purpose of the laying of Orders is not the question now before the House. What is before the House is Order 866, to which I invite the hon. Baronet to address himself.

Sir J. Mellor: The purpose of laying Order 866 upon the Table where it has to lie 4o days is to enable hon. Members to understand its implications. My protest is that in order to understand the implications of Order 866 one has to look at Orders 804, 733, 601, 449, 280 and 158, which are in 1946. But that does not end the matter. We have then to proceed to examine Orders 682, 1514, 1407, 1261, 1138, 1048 and 891, all of 1945. We have to trail back through all those Orders in order to discover the true implications of Order 866. It might be arguable that we have to take it on its own. It deals with quite simple, well

known commodities, such as imported potted meats,paté foie, and a new cereal breakfast food, but it also wants to do something which I do not understand. It proposes to substitute the description of "pork sausage meat or pork sausage bulk," for "canned pork sausage meat or pork sausage bulk." I imagine this would not be so stated in the Order unless it was a matter of some substance, and I hope the Minister has come to the House ready to explain the importance of that change; we shall no doubt benefit by his clarification. I desire that explanation, and I think the House ought to have it. These matters are of importance to every household and therefore it is the Minister's duty and that of every hon. Member of this House to make sure that this Order 866 is properly understood before it is laid before the House I make no apology for having moved this Motion. The Closure was most disgracefully moved—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order"].

Mr. Speaker: Did I understand the hon. Baronet to say the Closure was most disgracefully moved, and therefore accepted by the Chair? If so, I order him at once to withdraw it.

Sir J. Mellor: Mr. Speaker, I made no reflection upon the Chair. I said it was a disgrace to move—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I referred to the moving of the Closure by the Government Chief Whip, and I say I think it was disgraceful, on a subject of such importance, to move the Closure when only two and a half hours' Debate had taken place.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept that from the hon. Baronet. After all, I alone in this House have power to accept the Closure. If it was moved and if I accepted it, his remark is a reflection upon me. Therefore, I cannot allow that remark to pass and the hon. Baronet must withdraw it.

Sir J. Mellor: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, you could not have accepted the Closure unless it had been moved.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Baronet must not argue about this. I can accept the Closure or I need not accept the Closure. It is entirely within my province. That is the prerogative of the Speaker. There-


fore, to say that the Closure was disgracefully moved, means a reflection on the Speaker. I am serious about this and I direct the hon. Baronet to withdraw that remark at once.

Sir J. Mellor: Mr. Speaker, if you so order me, of course, I must withdraw it. But, Mr. Speaker, in withdrawing I ask your Ruling as to whether it was not a reflection upon the Chair when we divided against the Closure.

Mr. Speaker: No, certainly not. That always has been the custom. But it certainly a reflection on the Chair if you say the Closure was disgracefully moved and the Chair accepted it. After all, hon. Members are entitled always to divide against the Closure. Otherwise the position would be quite unreasonable and hon. Members would not have free expression of opinion. But if you say that the Chief Whip moved the Closure in a disgraceful manner, and the Speaker, by inference, accepts it, then there is a reflection on the Speaker.

Sir J. Mellor: In accordance——[Interruption.]

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I desire to call your attention to the fact that when you are dealing with a serious matter and asking an hon. Gentleman to withdraw, there is constant disorderly interruption from the other side of the House.

Mrs. Florence Paton: The noble Lord is the most disorderly person here.

Mr. Speaker: If the noble Lord will allow me to conduct the proceedings, we shall get on very much better.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. I desire to ask, Sir, whether your attention has been called to the fact that an hon. Gentleman opposite shouted, "Shut up." Is that in Order?

Mr. Speaker: Sometimes I am deaf and sometimes I am not; but I honestly think that if I am allowed to conduct the procedure we shall get on better.

Earl Winterton: Hear, hear. That is what we ask for.

Sir J. Mellor: In conclusion, may I say that I submit this Motion to annul this Order, in the hope that hon. Members will consider very carefully whether it is not

proper that this House should ensure the clarity of complicated legislation.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I beg to second the Motion.
I am sorry to rise in such a disturbed House, but I want to call the attention of the Minister to these Orders, which do require clarifying. It should be possible for the ordinary trader to know what these Orders are about, and I beg the Minister, in drawing them up, to make them as brief and intelligible as possible. It has been stated that 13 different Orders are referred to, and, unless he went into all of them fully, the ordinary trader would not know whether he was charging the right price for the goods or not. It is a waste of manpower, a waste of time and a waste of paper.

10.41 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I think that the three points raised by the hon. Baronet are quite simple. On the first point, what, I agree, at first sight may seem a somewhat pedantic change, merely signifies the change of words from "canned pork sausage meat" to "canned sausage meat", since some of the sausage meat which will be imported and on sale under the scheme in the coming period will have a little beef in it as well as pork. I think it is right, though it may be a bit pedantic, that our description of the goods should be accurate. The change, trivial as it may seem, is made for that purpose. I am assured that the sausage meat in question will be equally good.
On the main point which the hon. Baronet raised—a perfectly reasonable one—concerning the number of amending Orders which have to be made from time. to time owing to the very nature of a points rationing scheme, it is true that we are now on the thirteenth, but it is the thirteenth and last. The next time we have to make a change in cur points rationing we shall consolidate the Orders by a re-issue. There is nothing new in that. The hon. Baronet knows that it is done annually at the end of the year, which comes to an end, for this period, at the end of this month, when a new consolidating Order is issued. I think that is a reasonable arrangement, for, as the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) said——

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Was it done this time last year?

Mr. Strachey: I understand so. I think it is an annual event. The hon. Member for Leominster said very truly that we ought to try to economise manpower and paper in these matters, and I am, for example, advised that, if we issued new Orders each time and reprinted the Order with its Schedule each time instead of amending it, it would consume some two tons of paper extra, which, I think, would be a pity. Surely, the only practicable way is to make the required changes by a series of amending Orders, and when, as I quite agree must happen, It becomes too complex, issue a new consolidating Order, to take the place of the old one. That as I say is done annually; that practice I inherited from my illustrious line of predecessors in this office, and I assure the House that that is all there is in the whole matter.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the issue of this consolidating Order made because a certain period of time has elapsed, or because a certain number of Orders have been issued and the situation has become unbearably complicated? Surely it is a reasonable suggestion that a consolidating Order should be made for so many Orders, rather than so many months.

Mr. Strachey: It sounds a perfectly the issue of this consolidating Order it has been an annual event, but if there were so many amending Orders that the position was obviously becoming unmanageable it would be reasonable to issue a consolidating Order in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Harold Roberts: If this is an annual event perhaps the Minister would tell us, when the Order ends for this purpose?

Mr. Strachey: On 21st July.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Osborne: Since my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) was challenged on his interest in the matter under discussion in the previous Debate, I will declare my interest in this matter. I am chairman of a small provincial household grocery company, and I speak with some experience on this question. What I would like to ask is this. Would the

Minister please help the trade and the small shop keeper by making a declaration that it is his hope that as soon as possible all these regulations will be abolished? [Laughter.] I am very serious, It is not a laughing matter. We in the provinces who serve small shops in rural areas, find that much of our travellers' time is taken up by trying to explain to shopkeepers the meaning of various regulations. Indeed, many of the travellers actually fill up the forms for women in the shops, because these women cannot understand the forms. It would do the trade a lot of good, and would help us if the Minister could say that it is the intention of his Department one day to abolish all these forms—and the sooner the better.

Mr. Strachey: I can give the hon. Gentleman an answer straight away. Of course, when the end of food stringency and shortages has come, it is certainly the intention and the wish of His Majesty's Government to abolish the points rationing scheme, and every other rationing scheme.

Mr. Osborne: The trade and the country will be grateful for that assurance. In this case, as has been said, 13 references back are involved and these small shopkeepers, who are doing their best in very difficult circumstances, are liable to commit all sorts of offences under these regulations, which many of them have never seen and could not understand even if a lawyer tried to explain them. The Minister said that he thought it important that the description of the goods should be accurate. The shopkeepers and the people generally think it is more important to get more goods.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Challen: I do not wish to say now what I would have said on the previous Prayer, and I do not wish to add much to what has been said up to now on this Prayer. But I would like to make a point which I do not think has been made tonight, and that is on this matter of the explanatory note. In the case of the last Prayer we had a very long dissertation from the Minister as to what the Order meant. We have not had such a dissertation on this Prayer, and we have been constantly told that the matter is made clear by the explanatory note. I wish to point out to the House, as I endeavoured to do once before, that the


object of the explanatory notes on these Orders is to explain them, and it should not be necessary for hon. Members to put down Prayers and to get the Minister to come along here to explain them. That should be done on the explanatory notes. Some years ago, under some pressure on the Government of that day, this method of inserting explanatory notes upon Government Orders was introduced. What do we find? We find Orders produced by the Minister which simply say that the purpose of the amending Order is (a) to fix points for imported potted meats, and (b) to substitute one description for another description. That explains nothing at all. Therefore, these Prayers have to be put down in order to get the Minister to explain.
If I may stress this point and rub it in, I suggest that our Government Departments had better wake up and be alive to the fact that these Prayers will continue to be put down day after day, until the Orders begin to explain something. These explanatory notes are supposed to tell us what the Orders mean. They are supposed to tell Members of Parliament what they are dealing with; they are supposed to tell tradesmen what they have to do. Anybody reading this Order does not have to look on the back at all; he knows perfectly well what the Order is about. He knows the Order is to fix certain points values for potted meats, and to substitute one phrase for another. Therefore, it tells him nothing. What we wish to know is the basis of these Orders. Just as in the case with which we have just dealt, we wish to know the facts. If the Ministry or the Minister would condescend to give only half a page of real explanation of what the Orders mean, it would not be necessary to put down these Prayers.

10.53 p.m.

Captain John Crowder: As a Member of the Statutory Rules and Orders Committee, I make one appeal to the Government. I ask them to try to consolidate these Orders. It really does make a tremendous amount of work for people to have to go through 13 and 14 Orders. These all have to be circulated to the Members of the Committee; all have to be gone into; and it has been pointed out to us that it is very difficult for ordinary traders to decide what the final Order means. When they issue Order after Order, and when the Orders get

into double figures, the Government might see their way to consolidating them. It would be helpful to the Committee, to the public, and to everybody concerned.

Sir J. Mellor: I welcome the statement of the Minister that the next Order will be a consolidating Order. I assure him that we on this side of the House will watch very carefully when the next chain begins, in order to prevent it getting too long. I recognise that the Minister has seen our point of view tonight. That being so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ANGLO-SOVIET RELATIONS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Edelman: I apologise for raising so vast a subject as Anglo-Soviet relations at so late an hour, particularly as it might seem to exceed in scope the limits of an adjournment debate. But I wish to confine myself this evening to one or two concrete proposals, which I hope shortly to define, and which may, I think, result in Great Britain and Russia, in the words of the Foreign Secretary, "growing together."

Mr. Tiffany: On a point of Order. Might I ask which Minister is to reply?

Mr. Deputy - Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): That is not a point of Order. I assume the hon. Member has made some arrangement. However, it is not the responsibility of the Chair.

Mr. Edelman: Some time ago a former British envoy in Paris said:
Offensive and injurious insinuations are only calculated to throw new obstacles in the way of accommodation, and it is not by revolting reproaches nor by reciprocal invective that a sincere wish to accomplish the great. work of pacification can be evinced.
Those words were spoken by Lord Malmesbury in 1796, but they might equally well be addressed to those who today concern themselves with Anglo-Soviet relations. Our problem is to try to find a means whereby the interests of Britain and those of the Soviet Union can be composed not only in the interests of


those countries themselves, but in the interests of the whole of Europe. In the course of the year which has passed since the end of the war, we have seen how the good wartime relations between our two countries have deteriorated; and the deterioration has been inevitable because, in a sense, the aims of Soviet foreign policy are similar to our own. The Soviet Union is concerned with so arranging its interests in peace that it will be strategically well-disposed in the event of war. As a result, as the Soviet Union advanced in the course of fighting the war, as it pushed South and West and East, it came gradually into contact with the main strategic lines of the British Empire. The Soviet Union jostled us in Iran, prodded towards the Eastern Mediterranean, and tried to find an outlet on the Adriatic through Trieste. We very naturally and properly, defended the interests of our own Commonwealth against any penetration or obstruction or encroachment by the Soviet Union. But as the affairs of these great aggregations of power came to meet each other, and points of friction were set up, it seems to me that during the whole of that time, the Soviet Union was concerned above all with consolidating its own internal interests—the material interests of its people.. It was not concerned with an ideology, except as an instrument to promote the security and practical welfare of the Soviet Union.
All the time, whenever we discovered points of conflict with Russia, the origin of those conflicts was the fact that Russia was trying in some way to secure and defend its own material position, rather than to be the evangelist of Communism. M. Molotov himself, speaking at the time when he concluded his pact with Hitler on 31st August, 1939, said>:
It is our duty to think of the interests of the Soviet people, the interests of the U.S.S.R.—all the more because we are firmly convinced that the interests of the U.S.S.R., coincide with the fundamental interests of the people of other countries.
That may or may not be so; but it is certain that Russia, in its foreign policy, is less concerned with the promotion, of Communism than with the promotion of the physical security of the Soviet Union and the defence of the Soviet State. And so, today, through the very effort of fighting the war and thus being brought into closer proximity to

Russia, and through the immutable facts of geography, we find that, once again, we are in opposition to the Soviet Union, just as we were in opposition to the Tsars Russia during the last 50 years of the 19th century. For its part, too, the Soviet Union is driven by a corresponding urgency to extend and develop its power in relation to that of the British Empire today. Consequently, though, by a paradox, the war in bringing the two countries together has by that very fact made agreement difficult—and it may well be that, being a social democracy, we cannot find an absolute agreement with the Communist Soviet Union—we must nevertheless find some kind of modus vivendi, in order that we may be able to live together in the same world.
We have two alternatives: either our points of friction with Russia become the occasions of war, or on the other hand, we try to compose our interests with those of Russia in order that we may be able to live side by side and, as I said at the outset, quoting the words of the Foreign Secretary, ultimately to "grow together." To do that we must find some new technique, something to replace the old balance of power, which was a means of harmonising our interests with those of Russia and producing a state of equilibrium. Russia for her part has upset the old balance of power; she has turned the cordon, sanitaire inside out, and has made the States which once were a buffer against Russia and Communism, a buffer against the West. All the time Russia is pushing and promoting her interests in those regions where we consider our own vital interests to lie. In the sphere of commerce and economics, Russia is trying to make bilateral pacts with her neighbouring States, bilateral trade agreements which will monopolise the trade of those areas. She has made such pacts with Poland, Hungary and Rumania, and we for our part, adopting the old technique of trade, have tried to initiate a bilateral monopolising trade agreement with Greece.
It seems to me that, if we persist in this competitive rivalry at the points of friction with the Soviet Union—and Iran is the perfect illustration—trying, we for our part and Russia for her part, to obtain monopoly interests in those areas where our interests clash, we are sowing the seeds of a third world war. I would ask, therefore, is it possible to evolve some new


kind of machinery to enable the Russians and ourselves to combine, at the points where our interests meet, for the benefit of both our countries and of Europe as a whole? I believe it can be done I believe that, abandoning the old technique of bilateral agreements, we should join with the Soviet Union in joint trading companies or corporations. I suggest that if, for example in Iran, instead of an Anglo-Iranian oil company and a Russo-Iranian oil company glaring at each other across an invisible barrier, there were a joint trading corporation in which not only we and the Russians but also the Americans and all the other interested countries would take part, with Iran holding 51 per cent. of the shares, we should be able to profit not only ourselves but all these other countries to whom the oil of Iran is a vital concern.

Mr. Paget: Has the hon. Member any evidence that the Russians would be prepared to come into such an arrangement?

Mr. Edelman: No, but I was submitting this as an idea which we might put forward to the Russians. That, I suggest, should be the pattern for the whole of Europe; in addition to the trade corporation of this kind in Iran, there might also be a Balkan corporation, an Adriatic corporation based on Trieste, a Danubian corporation, a Ruhr corporation and, later on perhaps, a North China and a Pacific corporation. It may well be, as my hon. Friend suggests, that the Russians may be reluctant. But it seems to me that, if we can combine, in order to cross the frontier which does divide our own sphere of interest in the West from the Russian sphere of interest in the East, if we can link hands across these frontiers in these joint trading corporations, then we shall have evolved a new kind of international organisation; an international organisation which would be responsible to the Economic Council of the United Nations organisation, which would compose the differences between ourselves and the Soviet Union, and which, also, would prosper the whole of Europe.
It is well known, how often Balkan wars have been caused because of the penury of the peasant; because the peasant has never known whether he would be able to gather in a sufficient harvest to enable him to pay his debts; because he has never known whether he would be able

to scrape a living for himself from the soil. If there were for the Balkans a joint trading organisation in which we, the Russians, the Americans, and, perhaps, the French, too, collaborated, it could guarantee to buy the Balkan peasant's produce, and, in return, we should be willing to sell him tractors from Coventry, combine-harvesters from Chelyabinsk, tools from America, and so on. In such a way we could benefit the Balkans, and give the Balkan peasants a guarantee of livelihood; and we should he solving, not only an economic problem, but a political problem, because our interests have clashed with those of the Soviet Union precisely in that region. I think the organisation could be linked with an International Credit Bank, such as was envisaged at Bretton Woods, which would either finance the corporation or finance those who wanted to trade with that corporation. If we also formed an Adriatic corporation, in which Russian and the States of Central Europe were to take part, I think we would help solve the economic problems of Trieste and Central Europe, which cannot be solved unless there is some economic cooperation between the countries whose interests do meet at that point. The political internationalisation of Trieste which I have consistently advocated will be defective unless there is a joint economic machine to make it work I have put forward these proposals because I believe that now is the most crucial and critical time in our relations with the Soviet Union. Either we allow these points of friction to set up a festering disease in our relations which will ultimately result in war; or, alternatively, we can take the opportunity we have, during this present period of tension and difficulty with the Russians, to try to compose our differences on an economic level. I believe that Great Britain and ' Russia can function well together on this administrative basis. We have seen one example in the Kommandatura in Berlin, which. despite disagreements at a higher level, has functioned efficiently and smoothly. I believe if we have economic collaboration, it may ultimately develop into major political collaboration. We all look for security: we in Britain look for security, and the Russians want security. We must find a technique and a machinery for holding hands during the


period when we are trying to overcome our difficulties. I believe that it is only by fusing our interests in this practical and economic way, which will redound to the benefit of both Great Britain and Russia, that we can lay the basis for that functional collaboration, which will be the transitional means of maintaining peace.

11.10 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): My hon. Friend has made a most interesting speech about our relations with our great Soviet Ally and about how, in his view, trade and commerce might be used to make them better than they are today. He will agree that if anything were to be said on behalf of the Government about the subject matter of which he has spoken, it would be far better said by my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade than it could be said by me.
In fact, my right hon. Friend is tonight meeting, for the first time I believe, the new head of the Soviet trade delegation in London, Mr. Klentsov. I hope he may feel encouraged by that fact. I hope he will understand that, on the main theme of what he has said, I can do no more than to give him my assurance that I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend to the most interesting speech he has made.
I hope the House may think it useful if I say something about what I may call the background thinking on which his speech was based. He said, in effect, that the leading Powers of the world, the leading members of the United Nations, are not, at the present time, very "United Nations minded"; that they are still thinking in terms of power politics, that they are still basing their policy on strategy, and that before the last war is really over they are preparing for the next. He said that so long as they go on thinking in terms of politics alone it may stay like that, so, therefore, we ought to try and get our great Governments to cooperate in economic policies, and that if they do they will find common interests emerging and in due course the present conflict of ideas will disappear.
No one on this side of the House is likely to under-estimate the importance of economic factors in building up a stable peace. I think about a dozen times a

week that even the new democratic governments of Europe exaggerate in a lamentable manner the importance of where a frontier runs and do not understand the immeasurable importance of making frontiers unimportant. It is not many months since my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said:
I am more concerned with the economic rehabilitation of Europe than I am about geography. When I see millions of people suffering in the world, I would like to be sitting down considering how, and in what limited space of time, I could conquer hunger and misery.
On the main basic principle of the importance of the economic factor in world peace, there is no conflict between my hon. Friend and the Government or anybody on this side of the House, but I submit for his consideration that you go wrong if you try to separate the economic from the political factor in the creation of a stable system. If the nations adopt policies of economic nationalism, as they did in the last decade before the war, then, of course, you will have poverty and unrest, which make it easier for people like Hitler to come to power. You are preparing for the outbreak of war. But, equally, unless you get a firm political foundation for economic cooperation, unless you create a firm conviction that war is going to be stopped and that international law will be upheld against aggressors, then you cannot get true economic cooperation. It cannot be done.
It could quite easily be argued, and I could make a very good case for it—though it would not be the whole of the truth—that if the League of Nations had succeeded in reducing and controlling national armaments by a general international convention, if it had organised a system of collective security, to which its members were bound under Article 16 of the Covenant, it would have been relatively an easy matter to stop the general collapse into economic autarchy in the last Do years. It would have been relatively easy to have got true national and international cooperation in economic affairs. So long as one is preparing for war, or expecting war, one is driven to a policy of self-sufficiency. Therefore, we have to work, in every realm of international and economic, and political life, for better relations, better understanding and common action between Great Britain and Soviet Russia. We believe that that can best be done not by diplo-


matic bargaining, not by spheres of influence, not by the principle of "My ally, right or wrong," but by relying, and by inducing the Soviet Union to rely on the principles of the Charter by which we are both bound. We believe it can best be done by relying on those principles, and by working with the Soviet in the new international institutions which we have set up.
Only a few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in this House:
The basic aim of His Majesty's Government in their foreign policy will be to make the United Nations organisation work effectively; all international questions which arise must now be dealt with in relation to this new world fabric which we are bent on weaving and ultimately making effective, and which will, some day—I do not know how soon—draw its power direct from the will of the people. … I would suggest to the House and to the world, to all public men constantly to remind themselves of this; if we do not want to have total war, we must have total peace. One of the fundamental things in striving to achieve this total peace and the effective working of the United Nations, is that we must not only be prepared to submit our claims but to make clear our motives and to try to understand the motives of others."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1946; Vol. 421 c. 1833–34.]
Ever since we came to office, we have sought to work with the Soviet Union in that spirit given in the speech of my right hon. Friend. We never expected to agree with the Soviet Union on every point immediately after the war. But when the misunderstanding became more acute than we expected, when it was more bitterly expressed, when, if one likes, it became more alarming, we have striven to understand their points of view. I think it would be a great advantage, if everyone who criticises Soviet policy in this House or outside, tried to understand the Soviet point of view about the past. It is easy for any of us to think we won the war for democracy, and to think that by the international democracy of the United Nations, and the national democracy promised at Yalta, we shall solve all the burning problems of today. Well, the Soviet Union had not a very happy experience of our international democracy over Spain, or at Munich in 1938; and let us remember the kind of national democracy they had along their borders at that time—Colonel Beck in Poland, Prince

Paul in Yugoslavia, King Carol and the Iron Guard in Rumania, Dollfuss in Austria, and Horthy in Hungary. Of course, we know now that these people did not represent their nations, but they were in power, and the Soviet Union was entitled to ask if the new democracy, national and international, was to be a reality or a sham.
It is the Government's intention to prove that it is real. We mean to win the confidence of the Soviet Union, to break down their suspicions, however long it may take. No one in the Government feels that that process will be quick or easy, but I believe for my part that real progress has already been made. I do not think it can be denied by anybody who compares this last meeting of the Foreign Ministers in Paris, with their first meeting in London in August arid September a year ago. Just think what has been accomplished during the last three weeks. We sometimes get reports, as the hon. Member himself said, from the Allied Control Commission which show that by no means all their quadripartite work has proved abortive. In the work of the United Nations, which has been my particular task on behalf of the Government, in the Preparatory Commission, in the General Assembly, and in the Economic and Social Council, we have made progress. Of course much of the work is preliminary, constitutional, organisational. It is building up the rules of procedure, the customs of debate, voting, decisions, and so on. In the early days everything, from the selection of chairmen, has always been a major difficulty. I myself sat through a two-days' debate, upon the question of how the chairman of a certain body should be chosen, before we could begin any serious task at all. We know in this House how important procedure and the working of debate can be. I do not want to be complacent, but I believe, as my right hon. Friend has said more than once, that we are making progress, and that with patience, in due course we shall succeed.
In any case the Government wholeheartedly accept what the hon. Member quoted from M. Molotov. We believe, as he does, that the interests of the U.S.S.R. coincide with the fundamental interests of the peoples of all other countries. In economic as in other matters, this is the basic truth of the


modern world. The vital, major interests of the nations are not in conflict, but they are common interests which all share. We equally accept another Soviet saying that "peace is indivisible." These two maxims are the very Alpha and Omega of any realistic or intelligent foreign policy in the world as we know it today. If the Soviet Union will

act on them, as we still seek to do, we believe that, in spite of any differences in ideology or in institutional systems, we can work together for the happiness and prosperity of the world.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-three Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.